Reproductions Supplied by EDRS Are the Best That Can Be Made from the Original Document

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 473 790 CS 511 775

TITLE Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (85th, Miami, Florida, August 5-8, 2002). Science Communication Interest Group Division. PUB DATE 2002-08-00 NOTE 203p.; For other sections of these proceedings, see CS 511 769-787. PUB TYPE Collected Works Proceedings (021) Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Book Reviews; Climate Change; Content Analysis; Credibility; Electronic Mail; Global Warming; Higher Education; Information Sources; Interviews; *Journalism Education; Meteorology; Periodicals; *Scientific and Technical Information IDENTIFIERS Appalachia; *Environmental Reporting; Environmental Risk Assessment; News Sources; Nixon (Richard M); Rhetorical Strategies

ABSTRACT The Science Communication Interest Group Division of the proceedings contains the following 7 papers: "Forecasting the Future: How Television Weathercasters' Attitudes and Beliefs about Climate Change Affect Their Cognitive Knowledge on the Science" (Kris Wilson); "The Web and E-Mail in Science Communication: Results of In-Depth Interviews" (Rebecca Dumlao and Shearlean Duke); "Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics in Aldo Leopold's 'A Sand County Almanac'" (James F. Carstens); "Environmental Threats, Information Sources and Optimistic Bias: Environmental Risk in Appalachia" (Daniel Riffe and Jan Knight); "Context in Print and Online Environmental Articles" (Ryan Randazzo and Jennifer Greer); "Framing the Environmental Agenda: A Qualitative Comparison of 1970 Nixon Speeches and 'Time' Magazine" (Diana Knott); and "Source Credibility and Global Warming: A Content Analysis of Environmental Groups" (Terence (Terry) Flynn).(RS)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (85th, Miami, FL, August 5-8, 2002: Science Communication Interest Group Division.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

iq (GI' 11

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) 1:1 This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 1:1 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI positior. or policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Forecasting the Future: How Television

Weathercasters' Attitudes and Beliefs about Climate

Change Affect Their Cognitive Knowledge

on the Science

734(13--- Abstract

The topic of climate change has recently resurfaced on many news agendas, but increasingly the scientific and political issues niix. Previous research has noted that even though the public relies primarily on television news as a source of climate change information,broadcasting has few environment and/or science reporters to cover the topic.This study considers another potential source--television weathercasters. This research measures weathercasters' acquired climate change knowledge against the scientific consensus and analyzes differences in their knowledge based on several factors that may influence their climate change reporting. Results show that the TV weathercasters with the most accurate climate change knowledge scored highest in the affective domain--that is, the attitudes and values they hold about this scientific concept influenced their cognitive understanding of the topic more than any other independent variable. Put more simply----the "politics" of what some consider a controversial scientific topic had the greatest bearing on weathercasters' scientific knowledge. Forecasting the Future: How Television Weathercasters' Attitudes and Beliefs about Climate Change Affect Their Cognitive Knowledge on the Science

Creating Scientific Consensus

While media coverage of global warming didn't really begin until 1988, the research on the science of increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere dates all the way back to the 19th century. As industrialization was sweeping across the Northern Hemisphere, a Nobel-prize-winning chemist from Sweden first hypothesized about the impacts of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Arrenhius, 1896). His research estimated a global temperature increase of 4-6°C would result from a doubling of industrial emissions. While the technological tools have become more sophisticated and the temperature estimate has been refined over the last 100 plus years, thebasic science has remained the same. Climate modeling got an inadvertent boost in the 1950s Cold War era out of fears that the Soviet Union was modifying global climate (Victor, 1995). In 1965, the President's

Science Advisory Committee published the first government report to recognize that climate change could be caused by human activities and that this would have important consequences for the world (PSAC, 1965). Two yearslater, a numerical model of the atmosphere predicted that doubled carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere should raise the average surface temperature of Earth 1.5°C-3°C (Manabe and Weatherald,1967). More than 100 independent estimates of average surface temperature were made between the mid

1960's and the mid 1980's and all predicted temperate increases within the range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C with a doubling of greenhouse gases (Schlesinger and Mitchell, 1985). Since then, Forecasting the Future

multiple model enhancements and three international panels comprised of thousands of

leading scientists have concluded much the same. The third report of the IntergovernMental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001) projects that globally averaged surface temperatures

will rise 1.4 to 5.8°C this century. While the low end of the predicted temperature increase

has remained largely the same throughout the advances and changes in modeling, the high

end has gone through several modifications, with this new estimate of 5.8°C being higher

than in the two previous IPCC reports. Initially the press was not very interested in the atmospheric research on a doubling of carbon dioxide (Kellogg, 1988)that took the serendipitous confluence of extreme

weather events, combined with the release of new data, to take the theory of global warming from the laboratories and science journals and thrust it onto the media agenda. The climate of Earth has always fluctuated, so the task of separating the "signal" of anthropogenic warming amid the "noise" of the natural variability is extremely complex.

Scientists around the globe are using large computers and esoteric programming to tryand model both the current and predicted climate of the future. These general circulation Models (GCMs) are three-dimensional representations of the atmosphere that involve hundreds of thousands of separate equations (MacDonald, 1989). Although the models do show consistency with respect to increasing global temperatures, cloud coverand precipitation, regional predictions remain problematic because of the large grid size usedin the GCM's. The IPCC was formed by the United Nations to synthesize scientific consensus.

The principal finding in its report was that a "discernable global warming hasoccurred and it may be due to anthropogenic causes" (IPCC, 1995). The second reportconsidered regional analyses of climate trends, future climate scenarios and the impact for human and natural systems and was comprised of more biologists and geologists (IPCC, 1998).

The third assessment included more than 1200 multi-national scientists from 23 science disciplines that produced three separate working group documents, each morethan 2 5 Forecasting the Future

1,000 pages. In addition to considering "improved analysis of data sets and comparisons

among data from different sources that have led to a greaterunderstanding of climate

change," (IPCC, 2001) more emphasis was also placed on the social aspects of potential

climate change. Scientists were told to be "policy-relevant not policy- prescriptive" in their

report. In other words they were encouraged not to tell policymakers what to do about

potential climate change, but rather to provide "likely" scenarios in lay language that they

can understand and assimilate. While the ersatz separationof the science from the politics sounds like good practice, research, including results from this study, suggests that this is

difficult with this highly charged topic. And some scientists charge the IPCC itself with

being "too political" (Lindzen, 2001). The IPCC reports represent scientific consensus, a term that creates confusion

among scientists themselves, let alone journalists coveringthem. Scientists often accuse journalists of making science more certain than it is by eliminating important caveats, but the

limited research to date suggests that journalists often also make science seem far less

certain, often out of ignorance (Stocking, 1999). Some aspects of climate change science

are considered certainties: The theory of the greenhouseeffect itself is the most well- established certainty in all of atmospheric science (Kellogg, 1991) and is not debated, although the large majority of weathercasters in this survey believed it still was. Dramatic

increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, including a 31% increase in carbon dioxide

since 1750 (IPCC, 2001) are also considered certain science.

The next level of agreement is consensus, meaning there is large agreement among

scientists about the fmdings, but still some unknowns. Consider this statement of

attribution in the 2001 IPCC report: "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming in the last 50 years is LIKELY

(author emphasis added) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

.....and the balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence." Scientific consensus also occurs with regards to the measured0.6°C increase in global surface

3 Forecasting the Future temperature since 1861, when instrumentation began. Certainty is limited due to changes in measuring techniques, expansion of urban heat islands, and vast areasof oceans without complete data, yet this panel of expert scientists considers the temperatureincrease real.

Nine of the ten warmest years in recorded history haveoccurred since 1988, and 2001 was the planet's second hottest on record (National ClimateData Center, 2002). Uncertainties are greatest in the realm of future predicted effects.The models lack the precision and specificity to accurately foresee all of the future,especially regionally, and that is where much of the media attention,scieritific debate and political squabbling are focused. As mentioned above, all the models agree onglobal increases in temperature, cloud cover, and precipitation, but where these will occurand what the impacts of these changes will be, are not possible to discern with certaintyusing current models. The IPCC acknowledges "improved methods of processing data,"and some scientists are optimistic that kind of sophistication is only a few years away.Although, predicted future effects are problematic, that doesn't mean the entire science of climatechange is clouded with uncertainty. Science is not a popularity contest and many important minorityviews have later been proven correct (Ellsaesser, 1991), but qualitymedia reporting on climate change needs to accurately portray both the scientific consensusand dissent. Instead of correctly understanding where (and why) the scientific debate occurs,TV weathercasters in this survey appeared confused oftenexaggerating the debate and underplaying the consensus.

Climate Change and the Media

While no scholarly research currently exists on TVweathercasters and climate change, research about media coverage in generaldoes provide some context for why this study was conducted and how it adds to the literature.

While many people credit The New York Times forpublishing the first article on the "greenhouse effect" (August 22, 1981), a recenthistorical book uncovered the topic of 4 7 Forecasting the Future

"global warming" being reported in the Saturday Evening Post as early as 1950 (Fleming,

1998). Most news operations didn't broach the subject until the summer of 1988; when

NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress about the increasing evidence of global warming, while the U.S. was embroiled in an extended heat wave and drought that many scientists and journalists used as"hooks" for the story. Hansen never said that increased greenhouse gases had caused the record warmth and drought of 1988, but according to some scientists, that inference was drawn and widely reported in the media (Schneider, 1990). In the wake of such coverage a greenhouse backlash was created. Scientists who believed there was much uncertainty about the effects of greenhouse gas buildup increasingly came forward to express "some coolness concerning global warming." (Lindzen, 1989). Other scientists suggested that the press had spent too much time focusing on statements by a handfulof global warming skeptics

(Lashoff, 1990).One study found that this controversy among scientists received greater attention during the maintenance and downside of the attention cycle to global warming

(McComas and Shanahan, 1999), but the lingering effects of this "dueling scientists" debate were easily discerned among both reporters and TV weathercastersin these surveys. Journalists struggle with the terminology of the science of climate change. Science writers used the term "greenhouse effect" as a label, while non-sciencewriters preferred the term "global warming" (Wilkins, 1993). Laterresearch discovered that these kinds of differences in media portrayals were partially responsible for knowledge disparitiesnoted among a population of college students(Wilson, 1995). U.S. news reporting on global climate change peaked in 1988 (Trumbo,1995), declined in the early 1990s, and then resurfaced on most news agendasin late 1997.

Several possible explanations exist for this rise and fall in coverage.Ungar (1995) argues that global warming reporting declined because of the inability of thetopic to sustain the status of a dramatic crisis. Other research posits that thedramatic narratives media constructed drove the change in reporting (McComas and Shanahan,1999). Mazur and Lee 5 8 Forecasting the Future

(1993) found that in most cases drama rather than sciencehad also played a role in bringing

the ozone depletion story to the media's attention.Events such as the Kyoto Summit and El

Niflo's dramatic return and its resulting weather effects, mayalso partially explain the reemergence of climate change reporting, aswell as the on-going reporting on the scientific debate, which enhances the drama of the story at the expenseof the science.

Fluctuation in coverage could also result from what Downs (1972)first identified as the issue-attention cycle of reporting of environmentalissues. In his model Downs identifies five stages in the life of an environmentalissue: Pre-problem; Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm; Realizing the cost; Gradualdecline of interest; and Post-problem. Trumbo (1996) expanded Down's ideas and appliedthem to climate change reporting to identify the first three distinct phases in the media coverage.Scientists were the primary sources in the early stagesof climate change reporting when the framing of the story was defining the problems and diagnosing the causes. Aspoliticians and interest groups were increasingly successful in making their claims, theychanged the framing of the story toward making judgments and suggesting remedies (Trumbo,1996). Results of this survey indicate that the politicizing of climate change hashad a dramatic, deleterious impact on the ability of some weathercasters to communicateaccurately about the science. Wilkins (1990) was one of the first to consider the mixof science and politics in climate change reporting. She found that goodscience writers covered the scientific aspects of the story well, but missed the political nuances.Political reporting reflected the same problem: because the science was not covered well,the politics lost its edge. Ungar discovered that peaks in climate change reporting were notpegged to dramatic weather- related events, but rather stories about the politicsof the Bush Administration, Rio Earth

Summit and Kyoto Protocol (Ungar, 1999). Use of sources was also discovered to have adirect impact on reporters' knowledge about climate change (Wilson, 2000). In thatstudy, climate change knowledge was most accurate among the minority of reporters whoprimarily used scientists, instead of other 6 Forecasting the Future

media, as sources, as well as among those who worked on the science/environment beat full

time. Findings from this current study suggest that sources have little impact on the

acquired climate change knowledge of TV weathercasters.

There are very few full-time science/environment specialists, especially in television,

the medium with the greatest reach, and that was one genesis for this research---to consider other potential broadcast sources of information. Only 7% of these weathercasters say their

station has an environment/science reporter. Given the public's preference for TV as a

primary news source (Roper, 1998), TV weathercasters are an unstudied and perhaps

important source of climate change information.

Research Goals

To build on the findings of previous research and provide insights into some of the

gaps in the media dissemination of climate changeinformation, the goals of this study were

threefold:

1: To identify sources of weathercasters' climate change knowledge. 2: To measure this knowledge and identify conceptual gaps in knowledge.

3: To analyze differences in this knowledge based on a set of variables, including

educational background, staff position, market size, use of sources, acquisition of

meteorological "seals of approval", and attitudes and values about climate change.

Method

A four-page survey was mailed to 445 randomly selected local television

weathercasters. The Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook was used to identify all network

affiliates and independent stations in the United States with local newscasts. A rotating system of primetime/main anchor, morning/noon anchor, and weekend weatheranchor was

then used to identify one person at each station to receive the survey. Once the position was 7 _10 Forecasting the Future selected, a personal phone call was made to the station to getthe correct name and spelling of the person currently in that position. Then a surveyspecifically addressed to that person was mailed along with a coverletter identifying the investigator and the reasons for the inquiry. A total of 217 TV weathercasters responded to the survey for a response rateof

48.8%. This is a very high response given that it was a one-timemailing and no postcard reminders were mailed out. Survey research typically garners a response ratebetween 19-

27% with postcard follow-ups (Dillman, 1978). No codenumbers were used on the surveys to insure confidentiality andanonymity, which contributed to the higher response rate. The goal of a probability sample is asystematic selection procedure to represent the universe with a minimum of sampling error. This is one thelargest such surveys of TV weathercasters ever conducted, and provides some valuable insight intothis profession's ability to communicate about this important scientific topic. The sample has an excellent distribution among keyvariables. Half of the respondents are primetime anchors/chief meteorologists andthe other half work weekends and noon/mornings. Half (108) hold the AmeridanMeteorological Society (AMS) seal of approval, while a quarter of the sample have earned theNational Weather Association

(NWA) seal of approval (nine percent hold both seals) andthe remainder have neither of the voluntary credentials that on-air weathercasters can earn.The sample also includes a broad distribution among market sizes, with 22% from top 25 markets,16% in markets 26-50,

32% in markets 51-100 and another 30% in markets 101and smaller. In all, 127 television markets are represented in the sample. More than halfthe respondents hold degrees in meteorology/atmospheric science, while a quarter of the weathercasters'degrees are in journalism/communications. The remainder have a mix of trainingand education. All of these factors allowed for optimal statistical analysesbetween and among groups of independent variables.

8 11 Forecasting the Future

Cognitive knowledge about climate change was measured using 76multiple-choice

questions. "I don't know" was included as an option to moredirectly measure

weathercasters' ignorance about a topic. They were encouraged to usethat option rather

than randomly guessing to hide lack of knowledge (Converse,1984). Ignorance, in the

sense of absence of scientificknowledge, is another concept in need of scholar's attention (Stocking, 1999) and this study analyzed accurate, incorrect and "Idon't know" (ignorance) responses as proposed by Smithson (1989). The questions weredeveloped using the consensus report of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) and tested for accuracy with a national panel of atmosphericscientists. Knowledge was measured in four content areas: 1) scientific context, 2)greenhouse gases, 3) sources of increased greenhouse gas emissions, and 4) predictedeffects of climate change. An overall total knowledge and ignorance score for the entire test wasalso calculated and reported in table form. Because the political aspects of global climate change are sointricately woven with the science, a series of Likert scale questions rangingfrom "strongly agree," to "strongly disagree" were also used to query weathercasters' attitudesand values. The design and purpose of these questions enabled ananalysis of what Bloom (1956) first identified as the affective domain of knowledge. This is especially pertinent tolearning from television, where research indicates that television is most effective attransferring attitudes and beliefs (Philo, 1990). Bloom's taxonomy argues that attitudes andvalues must also be considered as part of the learning process,and in the case of this survey of television weathercasters, yielded the most dramatic findings.

Results and Discussion

1. Sources of Weathercaster Knowledge aboutClimate Change Unlike reporters who said they primarily relied on othermediated sources

(newspapers) for their climate change knowledge, these weathercasterssaid they primarily 9 12 Forecasting the Future used scientific journals (28%) and scientists(26%) as sources. This is a striking shift in the use of sources. Perhaps one reasonthis occurs is that on-air meteorologists workingin a science disciplinefeel more comfortable using scientific sources.Reporters often cite the difficulty in approaching scientists as a constraint totheir reporting (Dunwoody, 1986), but clearly many TV weathercasters don't share thisapprehension. This sample reported only small use of other media (8% combined forprint, TV and internet sources), in sharp contrast to environmental reporters'primary use of media as climate change sources

(Wilson, 2000).

2. Weathercasters' Knowledge aboutClimate Change

All 217 weathercasters (100%) were familiarwith the term global warming, but follow up questions uncovered large variabilityin accurate acquired knowledge. To examine the relationship between the individualpredictors and weathercasters' knowledge, ten summary scores werecreated (Table 1). Four summary scores represent weathercasters' accuracy to the survey questionsin each of the four content areas. An additional four summary scores were created to representweathercasters' lack of lcnowledge/ignorance ("I don't know" responses).There were five dimensions to each aspect of knowledge as denoted bythe content areas: Scientific Context,Knowledge of Greenhouse Gases, Knowledge of IncreasedGreenhouse Gas Emissions, Knowledge of

Predicted Effects, and Total Knowledge Index.The Total Knowledge Index represents the sum of the four otherdimensions. Table 1 shows the means, standarddeviations, and alpha coefficients for each score. Overall, reliabilities aregood except for scientific context, which will be elaborated on later, indicatingconsistency of responses within the domains.More variation occurs in the ignorance index,implying that despite the "I don't know option" some weathercasters were morewilling to admit their ignorance than others.

Table 2 shows the interconnections betweenthe dependent variables, demonstrating consistent relationships between knowledgeand ignoranceas accuracy increases, 10 13 Forecasting the Future ignorance is reduced. All correlations werestatistically significant at p <.01. Weathercaster responses were consistentwithin and across knowledge domains. Thosewith higher accuracy in the area ofscientific context, for instance, also showedhigher knowledge in other content areas. Highlighting some findings within the content areas:Carbon dioxide was correctly

identified as a greenhouse gas by 80% of theweathercasters and methane by 63%.

Weathercasters did not perform as well inrecognizing other important greenhouse gases

such as CFCs (56%) and nitrous oxide(22%). Most weathercasters were knowledgeable about sources of increased greenhouseemissions related to carbon dioxide, including auto emissions (87%) and deforestation (65%), but weresubstantially less aware of sources related to other greenhouse gasessuch aslandfills (25%) and rice agriculture (13%) associated with methane, and air conditioningleaks (47%) related to the release of CFCs. Surprisingly, all of these numbers are lowerthan reporter responses to the same

questions a few years earlier. This sample of weathercasters alsodemonstrated serious misconceptions about the

scientific consensus regarding predictionsof climate modeling. Most weathercasters were

aware of the scientific consensusof a global temperature increase (73%),although nearly a quarter answered, "I don't know."Only a third accurately identified the models'

agreement on an increase in global cloud cover(35%) and global precipitation increase

(34%) with a doubling of greenhouse gases.These statistics are startling, given that all atmospheric models agree on these predictionsand they represent basic atmosphericscience

that weathercasters' work with daily.In a warmer world, more evaporationwill occur, which

will increase cloud cover, which will lead to moreglobal precipitation. This is basic

meteorology, yet apparently misunderstoodby two-thirds of these television weathercasters.

It was expected that TV weathercasters,who use many similar models in theirforecasting

activities, would understand climate modelsbetter than reporters or the public, but theresults

from this survey did not support such ahypothesis.

11 Forecasting the Future

All general circulation models predict a global-scale warming with increased

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The range of that warming reflected in the scientific consensus reported by the IPCC has a lot to dowith how the increase in cloudiness is

treated in the equations (as well as oceans, ice, soil and vegetation). A positive feedback in the modeling creates more cirrus clouds on balance, which allow the sun's energy to enter the earth's atmosphere and also act to trap heat, exacerbating any warming. If more low level stratus clouds are created, less of the sun's energy reaches the surface creating a negative feedback and reducing the predicted warming. But all models predict moreclouds and precipitation on a global-scale. Like the reporters before them, many weathercasters also tended to ascribe scientific agreement where it does NOT exist by overestimating thescientific consensus about increased drought and hotter summers in the U.S. While such speculation much seem intuitive with the theory of "global warming," current climate modeling does not yet provide such specificity for regional predictions. Kempton (1997) found these misconceptions were shared in a sample of voters as well, and while not tested in his research, may have resulted from media coverage. Many people are unable todistinguish between the concepts of climate, which refers to long-term, stable patterns,and weather, which is short-term and highly variable. But the fact that weathercasters, whosedaily lives revolve around such nuances, are unable to do so is a bit surprising. 93%of the weathercasters disagreed with a later statement in the survey that "weather andclimate are the same thing," but many of them are confused about these concepts whenapplied to the predicted effects of increased greenhouse gases. Clearly, something iscontaminating their understanding of the science of their discipline. Some preliminary clues to this influence can be found in the first knowledge area.

The coefficient alpha was lowest in the area of scientific context (Table1), suggesting some problems with survey questions in this portion of the instrument, orperhaps with weathercasters' understanding of the concepts associated with the science of climate

12 Forecasting the Future

change. Only 22% of weathercasters correctly acknowledged that the theory of global

warming is accepted by most atmospheric scientists. Most weathercasters (58%) thought

the topic was still strongly debated among these specialists. The greenhouse effect is a

scientific certainty; but less than half (44%)of all TV weathercasters knew this fact. Weathercasters also scored poorly in three of the other four contextual measures in

the survey related to Earth's current temperature, as well as the scientific agreement on

predicted global temperature increase. Seventy percent of weathercasters accurately

identified the scientific consensus that Earth's surface temperature has indeed increased in

the last 100 years. But only 13% were able to identify the range of predicted temperature

increase. The largest percentage (35%) mistakenly thought there was no scientific

consensus on a global temperature increase. As these numbers indicate, significant numbers of weathercasters were ignorant or misinformed about these contextual measures that assist in making connections to on-going climate change research. Even though a majority of these weathercasters said they used scientists and science journals to primarily inform them about this topic, which was previously demonstrated to positively increase knowledge about climate change, something plainly is negating this practice. Discovering why this is occurring is one of the goals of the next section.

3.Factors Affecting Weathercaster Knowledge about Climate Change The same four content knowledge areas were used for this analysis, as well as the

Total Knowledge Index. To test which weathercaster characteristics would best predict knowledge outcomes, a set of hierarchical multiple linear regressions were conducted. The following demographic predictors were included on Step 1: staff position (primary anchor or other), educational background, and market size. It was expected thatthose

13 16 Forecasting the Future weathercasters who had risen in their careers to larger markets and/or primaryanchors and who had science degrees would possess better knowledge than other weathercasters.

On Step 2, predictors were entered representing whether weathercasters had earned seals of approval from either the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and/or National Weather Association (NWA). Again, the expectation was that those who had passed meteorological exams and certification required to earn these seals would have more accurate climate change knowledge than those who had not earnedthese credentials. By entering the seal characteristics on Step 2, the regression model tests variation in their knowledge after controlling for position, education and market size characteristicsin Step 1.

Step 3 included six variables representing TV weathercasters' attitudes and beliefs about climate change as measured with Likert scale questions in the survey. Thequestions asked weathercasters to choose among a five-point scale of "strongly agree" to"strongly disagree" to the statements. A negative number in the table representsdisagreement with the statement. Table 3 shows the individual standardized regression coefficients (Beta's) forthe predictors and the incremental R-squared values for the three blocksof variables along with the Overall R-squared values for the entire model usingthe five knowledge accuracy scores as dependent variables. Overall, veryfew of the variables in Step 1 and Step 2 had the expected impact on TV weathercasters' knowledge (Table 3). For example, the seven predictors in Step 1 explain about 9% of the variation in weathercaster accuracyin the domain of scientific context, and 8% of the variation in total knowledge,but none of the individual predictors exhibited statistical significance. Having a meteorologydegree was the most consistent predictor of accurate climate changeknowledge in Step 1, but again it was not statistically significant by itself. Surprisingly,market size and seniority in the business and on the weather staff had no statistical effect on climate changeknowledge, which challenges one of the basic tenets of television that the best in the businessrise to senior positions in larger markets.

14 `-= 17 Forecasting the Future

Step 2 characteristics explain none of the variation in weathercaster knowledge.

Only in the area of predicted effects did having a seal (AMS) positivelypredict an increase

in accurate knowledge, but overall neither seal had any statisticalsignificance on climate

knowledge. This may be especially distressing to those organizations thatadminister these

seal programs and require extensive testing and certification to earn thedistinction of "seal

of approval." While not directly testing for climatological knowledge, theseals require meteorological training that covers many of the same issues presented earlier. A separate

study is measuring the perceived value of these voluntary seals, andindicates there is strong

debate among weathercasters about the difference between, andthe value of the two seals,

but it appears that neither seal is a reliable predictor in itself of accurateweathercaster

knowledge about climate change. While expecting more significant findings in the first two steps and notfinding

them, the strongest predictors explaining variation in TV weathercasterknowledge were consistently found in their attitudes and values about the topic ofclimate change, even after

controlling for those factors in the previous analyses. Thesequestions measured the affective domain and results indicate they had the largest bearing onthese weathercasters'

cognitive knowledge. Before analyzing the multiple regressionresults, responses to each of

the questions are first discussed to provide some context for theanalysis. Three quarters of the weathercasters agreed that, "Climate change is a serious environmental issue." Fewer than five percent disagreed with the statement.More than

93% of them accurately acknowledged that climate andweather are distinct concepts, while

three percent thought the terms were the same. Morethan half of the respondents (57%)

believed " I understand the science of climate change,"while only 12% thought they did not. The accuracy of their responses inthis survey, however, contradicts this belief as many weathercasters actually have distorted understandings of the science.A third of the sample felt neutral in responding to this question, perhaps indicatingthat many weathercasters believe they understand some aspects of the science while being ignorantof others. These

15 8 Forecasting the Future

Likert questions were asked at the end of the survey,after weathercasters had answered the cognitive knowledge questions, perhaps also giving someof them an insight into the breadth and depth of climate change concepts they may nothave considered before. These television weathercasters were evenly split aboutwhether their broadcasts are

"the proper place to educate about environmentalissues such as climate change." More than 40% agreed with the statement, 30% disagreed,and 28% felt neutral about using their weather broadcasts to educate about climate change.In follow-up interviews, many television weathercasters bristled at the word"educate," which many do not feel is their job or purvey, which may haveunintentionally complicated the results to this question. Weathercasters' answers to these preceding questionshad no statistical impact on their climate change accuracy or ignorance. Finally, the remaining questions asked respondents to comment onchanges in local weather, their area of expertise, and their responseshere had the greatest influence on their climate change knowledge. Weathercasters wereevenly divided in their responses to "Variations in weather are becoming increasinglycommon." Only a third agreed with the statement, which is supported byIPCC findings. Almost the same number disagreed with the statement. What these questions can'tdiscriminate is whether these responses are linked to variations in weather in specific localesbased on personal experiences of the individual weathercaster, or based on the climatechange research. The third of weathercasters who answered this question correctlyhad more accurate climate change knowledge overall. A follow-up question gets to the debate overthese increasing changes in weather

and asked respondents if these "local variations aresymptomatic of global climate change." A majority (53%) accurately disagreedwith the statement, and only nine percent mistakenly take the research beyond its currentcapabilities to ascribe local, regional effects

not yet linked to climate change. Thesingle largest group of respondents (38%) did not know. 16 19. Forecasting the Future

Each of these questions was used in Step 3 of the hierarchical multiple regression model to measure their potential impact on weathercaster accuracy and ignorance of climate change knowledge. The significance is greatest in accurate knowledge of greenhouse gases and total knowledge (p < .001), but occurs in all five content areas (Table 3). The negative relationship found in four of the content areas with the statement, "Variations in local weather" indicate TV weathercaster disagreement and an accurate response. No credible scientist claims the ability to ascribe a particular weather event to global climate change, and those weathercasters who knew that had more accurate climate change knowledge.

The same kind of statistical significance occurs with those weathercasters who agree that "Variations in local weather are becoming increasingly common" in the content areas of knowledge of greenhouse gases and total knowledge. Those weathercasters that acknowledge this is occurring have a more accurate understanding of the science. Finally, those weathercasters who possess the attitude that "I understand the science of climate change," actually do better in four of the content areas with statistical significance of p < .01 in total knowledge. This subjective feeling of being well informed (Miller, 1986) actually proves true with these TV weathercasters. Overall the predictors explain 23% of the variation in accurate weathercaster knowledge, which is statistically significant (p < .001).

A similar set of hierarchical multiple regressions was performed using the five ignorance scores as dependent variables. Table 4 shows the individual standardized regression coefficients (Beta's) for the predictors and the incremental R-squared valuesfor the three blocks of variables along with the Overall R-squared values for the entiremodel.

Overall, the same predictors of accuracy were also the most consistent statistically significant predictors of ignorance. Forecasting the Future

Conclusions

Public understanding of science is critical in a society increasingly affected by its impacts and its related policy implications (Nelkin, 1987). The world's leading scientists acknowledge the vital role of a well-informed public in order to set appropriate climate change policy (IPCC, 1995). Today, the media are the most common source of such scientific information. The media were the sole source of information on climate change for most New Zealanders (Bell, 1994), and in the United States,the media, especially television, were also identified as the primary source ofclimate change knowledge (Wilson, 1995): This research has addressed another area of mediated climate change information thathad yet to be considered--the role of television weathercasters.Previous content analyses helped understand how media covered climate change, while this study attempts to add to the literature on why this reporting is occurring. The results from this research suggest that despite the best intentions of the IPCC and other scientists, the political aspects of climate change are noteasily separated from the science. Even among this group of specialists in atmospheric science, widespreadignorance and misinformation of basic climate change science is evident, and as the data describe, much of that can be connected to the values and beliefs that weathercasters holdabout the topic. These results substantiate other recent findings about the power of people's "feelings" (affective domain) over knowledge in public support for biotechnology(Priest,

2001). Solutions to this dilemma are not easily rendered. Recommending that reporters go to scientists and science journals, instead of othermedia as primary sources of knowledge, as suggested in previous research, does notapply here. These weathercasters say they are already using those preferred sources, and yet the distortion of theirscientific knowledge persists. Previous research also found that full-time science/environment reportershad more accurate climate change knowledgethan other reporters, and it was recommended that increasing their numbers and status might also improve reporting. However, theTV 18 21 Forecasting the Future

weathercasters in this survey are already full -time, and the data show that being primary

anchor in the largest market or weekend anchor in the smallest market had no statistical

impact on their climate change knowledge. Neither did possessing either of the two coveted

seals of approval, suggesting that more training and education alone may also not address

the disparity in accurate knowledge. The mixing of climate change science and politics seems to have had a special

impact on TV weathercasters. As one example, the Clinton administration inadvertently

exacerbated the perceived politicizing of the climate change issue among TV weathercasters.

One hundred of them received personal invitations from then Vice- President Al Gore to

attend a climate change summit at the White House in 1997. While many appreciated the

invitation and the exposure, many others who attended were offended that a politician dare

attempt to educate them on such a topic. Others who weren't invited considered this a professional snub. The net result is that many TV weathercasters feel that Washington

politicians are attempting to skew the scientific data on climate change for their own

purposes, meanwhile ironically oblivious to their own misperceptions of the science. At

professional meetings, a consistent and vocal minority of TV weathercasters expresses

outrage when confronted with the scientific certainty and consensus regarding climate

change, often couching their comments in political terms that defy and contradict their

science training. One aspect this study design did not consider was the age of the

weathercasters. Anecdotal evidence has led some to suggest a generation gap hypothesis as

one more explanation for the disparity in TV weathercasters'understanding of the science of climate change. While no one has analyzed this potential variable, many within in the

weathercaster community suspect that older weathercasters are much more skeptical of climate change research. Many TV weathercasters create dissent in areas where science agrees, unnecessarily flaming the debate. Their misunderstandings of some of the basic principles of meteorology that also apply to climate change are baffling and ultimately can be explained

19 Forecasting the Future

in this sample by their own politicizing of the science. New strategies to overcome these

obstacles will need to be considered in addition to the remedies previously recommended

for other journalists. One study currently being conducted by this author analyzes TV weathercasters'

use of video interviews and b-roll provided by ascientific organization. Hundreds of TV

weathercasters took advantage of this service and analyzing how the video materials were

used in the broadcasts may provide some further insights. Another study being proposed

would conduct extensive interviews with TV weathercasters to gather qualitative data to complement the quantitative findings presented here. Ultimately, the goals of further research are to continue to uncover why many TV weathercasters have difficulty grappling with the science of climate change and to devise effective strategies to improve their crucial contribution to the public communication of science.

20 23 Forecasting the Future

References

Arrhenius, S. 1896. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-271.

Bell, A. 1994. Media (mis)communication on the science of climate change. Public Understanding of Science 3(4): 259-275.

Bloom, B. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I. New York: McGraw-Hill. Converse, J.M. 1984. Strong arguments and weak evidence: The open/closed Controversy. Public Opinion Quarterly 48: 267-282.

Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Downs, A. 1972. Up and down with ecology--the issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest 28: 38-50. Dunwoody; S. 1986. The scientist as source. In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C.L. Rogers, 3-16. New York: Free Press. Ellsaesser, H. 1991. Comment on the global warming debate heats up: An analysis and perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 72(7): 1009-1010. Fleming, J.R. 1998. Historical Perspectives on Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1995. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1998. Climate Change: Policymakers summary of the scientific assessment of climate change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Summary for Policymakers: A Report of Working Group I. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kellogg, W.W. 1991. Response to skeptics of global warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 74(4): 499-511. Kellogg, W.W. 1988. Human impact on climate: The evolution of an awareness. In Societal response to regional climate change: Forecasting by analogy, edited by Michael Glantz, 9-39. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kempton, W. 1997. How the public views climate change. Environment 39: 1-12.

Lashoff, Daniel A. 1990. Concern about global warming: Panic or prudence? Washington D.C.: National Resources Defense Council.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE Forecasting the Future

Lindzen, R. 2001. Weaknesses in the alarmist case. Global Climate Change Presentation to the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships at M.I.T. (April 26, 2001).

Lindzen, R. 1989. Some coolness concerning global warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 71: 288-299. MacDonald, G. 1989. Scientific basis for the greenhouse effect. In The Challenge of Global Warming, edited by D.E. Abrahamson, 123-145. Washington D.C.: Island Press.

Manabe, S., & R. Weatherald. 1967. Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity. Journal of Atmospheric Science 24: 241-259. Mazur, A., and J. Lee. 1993. Sounding the global alarm: Environmental issues in the U.S. national news. Social Studies of Science 23: 681-720.

McComas, K. and J. Shanahan. 1999. Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research 26(1): 30-57.

Miller, J. 1986. Reaching the attentive and interested publics for science. In Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C.L. Rogers, 55-70. New York: Free Press Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Philo, G. 1990. Seeing and Believing: The Influence of Television. London: Routledge.

Priest, S. H. 2001. Misplaced faith: Communication variables as predictors of encouragement for biotechnology development. Science Communication 23 (2): 97-110. President's Science Advisory Committee (1965). Restoring the quality of our Environment. Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel. Washington D.C.: PSAC, 1965. Roper, B. W. 1998. Public Attitudes Toward Television and Other Mass Media. A report by the Roper Organization, Inc. New York: Television Information Office. Schlesinger M., and J.F.B. Mitchell. 1985. Climate model simulations ofthe equilibrium climatic response to increased CO2. Review of Geophysics 25: 760-798.

Schneider, S. 1990. The global warming debate heats up: An analysisand perspective. Bulletin of American Meteorological Society 71(9): 1292-1304. Smithson, M. 1989. Ignorance and Uncertainty: Emerging Paradigms.New York: Springer-Verlag.

22 BESTCOPYAVAILABLE Forecasting the Future

Stocking, H. 1999. How journalists deal with uncertainty. In Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science, edited by S.M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C.L. Rogers 23-41. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Trumbo, C. 1996. Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science 5(3): 1-15.

Trumbo, C. 1995. Longitudinal modeling of public issues with the agenda-setting process: The case of global warming. Journalism and Communication Monographs 152. Ungar, S. 1999. Is strange weather in the air? A study of U.S. national network news coverage of extreme weather events. Climatic Change 41: 133-150.

Ungar, S. 1995. Social scares and global warming: Beyond the Rio convention. Society and Natural Resources 8: 443-456. Victor, D. 1995. On writing good histories of climate change and testing social science theories. Climatic Change 29: 363-369.

Wilkins, L. 1993. Between facts and values: Print media coverage of the greenhouse effdct, 1987-1990. Public Understanding of Science 2(2): 71-84. Wilkins, L. 1990. Taking the future seriously. Journal of Mass Media Ethics. 5:88-101. Wilson, K. M. 2000. Drought, debate, and uncertainty: Reporters' misconceptions about climate change. Public Understanding of Science 9(2000): 1-13. Wilson, K. M. 1995. Mass media as sources of global warming knowledge. Mass Comm Review 22(1): 75-89.

23 weathercasters'Torepresent examine theweathercasters' lack relationships of knowledge. accuracy between There inthe were responding individual five dimensions topredictors questions to each and represented aspectweathercasters' of knowledge: by a correct knowledge, SCIENTIFIC answer. ten An CONTEXT, additional KNOWLEDGEfive summary OFscores GREENHOUSE were created GASES, to represent summary scores were created. Five summary scores TablerepresentsreliabilitiesKNOWLEDGE 1 the appear sum OF INCREASE of adequate the four IN other exceptGREENHOUSE dimensions. for scientific EMISSIONS, Table context. 1 shows KNOWLEDGE the means, OF PREDICTED standard deviations, EFFECTS, and TOTALcoefficient KNOWLEDGE alphas for INDEX. each Thescore. Total Overall, Knowledge most Index ACCURACYOutcome OF SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT Mean2.69 Std Deviation 1.05 Alpha IGNORANCEACCURACY OF OFOF KNOWLEDGE GREENHOUSESCIENTIFIC CONTEXT OF GASES GREENHOUSE GASES 4.00 .97 2.412.041.02 .67.40.22 KNOWLEDGEIGNORANCEACCURACY OF OF OF KNOWLEDGE INCREASE PREDICTED IN OFGREENHOUSEEFFECTS INCREASE IN EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS 2.054.045.592.84 3.072.431.88 .83.68.80 TOTALIGNORANCE IGNORANCEKNOWLEDGE OF PREDICTED INDEX INDEX EFFECTS 11.9414.334.08 7.032.445.53 .87.80.86.78 BEST COPY AVALABLE TableTable 2: 2 shows the intercorrelations between the Correlations among independent variables ten scores. AU correlations were statistically significant. (1)Correlations*" ACCURACY OF SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT 1.00 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (5) (4)(3)(2)ACCURACY IGNORANCEACCURACY OF OF OFKNOWLEDGEOF KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGESCIENTIFIC OF CONTEXTOF GREENHOUSEINCREASE GREENHOUSE IN GREENHOUSE GASES GASES -0.39-0.630.41 -0.360.341.00 -0.851.00 1.00 (7)(6)EMISSIONS IGNORANCEKNOWLEDGE OF OF INCREASE PREDICTED IN GREENHOUSEEFFECTS EMISSIONS -0.410.410.34 -0.28-0.390.37 -0.620.300.60 -0.34-0.580.71 -0.830.291.00 -0.411.00 1.00 Note:(9) (10)(8)TOTAL IGNORANCE AllTOTAL correlations KNOWLEDGE IGNORANCE OF PREDICTED were INDEX INDEX significant EFFECTS at p < .01 -0.54-0.390.63 -0.510.560.38 -0.73-0.330.81 -0.750.840.39 -0.71-0.310.82 0.88-0.810.42 -0.65-0.870.66 -0.630.721.00 -0.911.00 1.00 Table 3: Hierarchical Multiple Regression using Accuracy Indexes as Dependent SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT ACCURACY OF KNOWLEDGEACCURACY OF OF KNOWLEDGEAACCURACY OFINCREASE OF IN PREDICTED EFFECTSKNOWLEDGE OF TOTAL KNOWLEDGE INDEX Equation StandardizedCoefficient Beta Change in R StandardizedCoefficientGREENHOUSE GASESBeta Change in R GREENHOUSEStandardizedCoefficient EMISSIONS Beta Change in R Beta CoefficientStandardized Change in R Beta CoefficientStandardized Change in R2 OtherPrimaryStep 1 anchor Anchor .05.00 .086* .03.09 .05 -.04-.08 .03 .00.02 .09* .00.01 .08* JournalismMeteorology Degree Degree -.17.03.02 .14.03.17 .08.09.17 -.07.08 -.01.17 MarketDegreeJournalismOther science Size and degree Science -.02-.03 .06.03 .09.07 -.02-.06-.07 .05.01.06 AMSStep seal2 -.06.16 .11.01 .01 -.01.06 .00 .18*.07 .03 .13 .01 ClimateStepNWA 3seal change is a .08 .07* .10 .07* .11 .12*** -.02 .10** .10.05 - .14*** VariationsplaceWeathercastserious to issue educate becoming is the proper -.03.15 .11.09 .24*.09 .23*-.01 .26** .06 sameWeatherclimateVariationsincreasingly thing change Et symptomatic climatecommon. are theof -.05.01 -.29** .00 -.26*-.10 -.12-.13 -.27** -.10 Total*ofI understandp climate R-Squared< .05 ** change p

A paper presented to the Science CommunicationDivision, Association for Education in Journalism and MassCommunication, Miami Beach, FL, 2002

Rebecca Dumlao, Ph.D. Department of Communication and Broadcasting East Carolina University 103 Joyner East Greenville, NC 27858 252-328-1512 252-328-1509 fax [email protected]

Shear lean Duke, M.A. Department of Journalism Western Washington University Bellingham, WA 98225 360-650-3269 [email protected] The Web and E-Mail in ScienceCommunication: Results of In-Depth Interviews

Using open-ended interviews,researchers identified 12 themes concerning web and e-mail use by sciencewriters. The web and e-mail "speeds information" between sources, reporters,editors, and audiences. "Skepticism" about information quality leads sciencewriters to urge practices of "good judgment" by web users. A diagram illustrates ways"speeds information" is changing journalistic work. Suggestionsconcerning future research on diffusion of information are offered.

32 The Web and E-Mail in Science Communication: Results of In-Depth Interviews

Journalists work in a profession dependent upon accurate and timely

information. In the past, gathering that information often meant poring through

papers, visiting dozens of reliable experts,and telephoning sources in distant

locations. Thanks to the Internet, all that has changed. Specifically,two features

of the Internet- the World Wide Web and electronic mail (e-mail)-have helped

bring about this change. Today journalists can search documentsonline and

"chat" with experts without leaving the office. As for telephoning sources, many

journalists now opt for e-mail.

Researchers are increasingly studying these new technologies.The

Middleberg/Ross Survey of Media in the Wired World discovered that among

print and broadcast journalists, e-mail now matches the telephone as apreferred

method of communicating with sources (Middleberg/Ross 2000).Garrison (1995,

1997, 2000) has called computer-assisted reporting the dominant new

newsgathering tool of the decade.

This article reports results of recent open-ended interviews withmembers

of the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) seeking tounderstand

more about how science journalists use e-mailand the Web in their work and

how their lives are changing as a result of using these new technologies.Our

interviews follow up an earlier two-part survey study of NASW members

concerning how these journalists use e-mail and the Web to go about news

making (Trumbo et al., 2001).

33 Web and E-Mail Page 3

Science Journalism and the Internet

Even though today, the Web is a household word, the Web itself is alittle more than a decade old.It began in 1989 as a collaborative project designed to make communication easier among scientific researchers around theworld

(Marlow 1996). E-mail also was used early and frequently in the scientific community to facilitate communication (Aborn 1988). This early use of theWeb and e-mail among the scientific community makes the science"bear an interesting one to explore.

Journalists who specialize in covering science have much in commonwith other journalists. For example, they must research and write theirstories using the same guidelines and techniques that other journalists use.They must write clearly in jargon-free language that the average reader can understand.In addition, they must research very complex subjects on deadline,including conducting interviews with multiple scientific sources (Conrad 1999).

In today's fast-paced world in which science advances rapidly,the science journalist plays an important role. Stories written by these journalists serve as the primary way that most people learn about science (Nelkin1995). Science journalism as we know it today has grown rapidly since World War II(Meadow

1986). As Rogers (2000) points out, one main reason for the growth inscience

reporting is that people are very interested in science. She cites the successof

television programs like NOVA and the increasing popularity of sciencebooks

directed to general audiences as support for this contention.

34 Web and E-Mail Page 4

Use and Growth of E-Mail

The use of e-mail has been the subject ofcommunication research for

about two decades. Many studies focused onthe technological efficiency of e-

mail; many dealt with e-mail use withinorganizations (Rice, 1993; Steinfield,

1986; Schmitz and Fulk, 1991; Garton andWellman, 1995, and Althaus, 1997).

Researchers such as Kies ler, Siegal and McGuire (1984)looked at the social

and psychological implications of communicatingwith e-mail versus more

traditional methods of communication. They foundthat people using e-mail

appeared to be less inhibited than those communicatingface-to-face. Sproul! and

Kies ler (1991) concluded that e-mail not only affecthow people work together,

but can influence the structure of an organization.Phillips and Eisenberg (1993)

point out that e-mail can be used to accomplishstrategic goals within an

organizational setting. Schaefemieyer and Sewell (1988)found that e-mail was

replacing other forms of communication, includingtelephone, letters and face-to-

face communication.

Today, e-mail use is pervasive, with users ranging frommajor

corporations to academic institutions (Hunter and Allen1992). Instructors use e-

mail to enhance classroom instruction (Dorman 1998),health care researchers

use e-mail to synthesize data(Bunting and Russell 1998) and petrochemical

organizations use e-mail to do research (Schmitz and Fu lk1991). The Electronic

Messaging Association, a group funded by corporatee-mail users, estimates that

the largest 2,000 U.S. corporations have 5 millionemployees who share 6.1

35 Web and E-Mail Page 5 billion e-mail messages each year (Ey1995). Rogen International, which studied the effectiveness of e-mail andface-to-face communication in the workplace, found that e-mail use has grown by morethan 600% in 6 years (Crowther and

Goldhaber 2001).

Importantly, Dimmick, Kline and Stafford (200)discovered nearly half of

their respondents reported using the telephoneless frequently since they began

using e-mail. Electronic mail was noted to besuperior in fitting into people's work

schedules and allowing them to communicatereadily across different time zones.

On the other hand, the phone provided greatersociability for respondents.

These researchers concluded that telephoneand e-mail both have broad niches

which are not in direction competition with eachother and aren't substitutes for

one another. Flaherty, Pearceand Rubin (1998) drew similar conclusionsin their

study, pointing out that e-mail is "functionallyspecialized" serving as a unique

communication channel that enhances but does notduplicate other

communication methods.

E-mail and Science

E-mail was used early and frequently in the scientificcommunity (Aborn

1988) and has been studied by Selnow (1988)Lievrow and Carley (1990) and

Trumbo et al. (2001). As Lievrouw and Carley point out,NASA came up with the

word "telescience" to describe how scientists livingin different georgraphic areas

used e-mail to communicate and collaborate. E-mail useis now widespread in

American science (Walsh et al. 2000). E-mail also seemswell suited for

36 Web and E-Mail Page 6 journalists who rely on it to keep in touch with their offices and to communicate with sources thousands of miles away (Cochran 1997). In fact, 98% of journalists responding to the Seventh Annual Middleberg/Ross (2000) survey said they check their e-mail at least once a day and spend 15 hours a week reading and sending e-mail.

Use and Growth of the Web

Today nearly a half billion people worldwide have Internethome access

(Nielsen/NetRatings 2002). In the United States, more than half of all households have a computer and over 80 percent of these households have access to the

Internet (U.S. Department of Commerce Report, 2000). Vinton Cerf, known as the father of the Internet, estimates that about 75% of traffic on the Internet is on the World Wide Web, which is fast becoming one of the world's leadingforms of communication (Cerf 2001).

Although the Web is only a little over a decade old, it has been the subject of much communication research. Johnson (1997) gathered detailed information about how public relations practitioners use the Web, particularly as a way to

reach specific audiences, and Thomsen (1995) examined online tools for issues management. Others have concentrated on Web use within organizations

(Esrock and Leichty 1998, Grupp and Margaritis 2000). The Web's use in health

communication has been the subject of several researchers including Harris

(1995), Chamberlain (1996), and Cassell, Jackson and Cheuvront (1998) and

McMillan (1999). The Web as an advertising medium has also been examined,

37 Web and E-Mail Page 7 with researchers discovering that Web advertisers need to do more to attract readers than advertisers in a traditional print medium (Sundar, Narayan,

Obregon, and Uppal 1998).

The Web and Journalism

More relevant to this article is the use of the Web in journalism. Cochran

(1997) points out that journalists are making the Web part of their daily routine and in so doing, are reshaping the profession. Garrison's most recent study

(2000) examined journalists' use of the World Wide Web for newsgathering and discovered a significant growth in the use of the Web between 1996 and 1997.

He discovered that journalists had few problems with the technology involved in online reporting, but that they did sometimes have trouble verifying facts and establishing source credibility on the Web.

Source credibility is a subject of much concern to journalists, who rely on experts, ranging from scientists to government officials, for nearly everything they write. Sundar and Nass (2001) suggest that with new online technology, manifestations of new technology such as a Webpage may now be considered "a source" by some users, creating confusion. As Weise (1997) points out, reporters who use the Web as a research tool may encounter rumors and lies presented as facts and truth. Journalists have an ethical obligation to ensure that whatthey report is accurate (Ketterer 1998). Yet, just about anyone with a computer can create a Webpage and post credible sounding information online. So, even as journalists enthusiastically embrace the Web as a research tool

38 Web and E-Mail Page 8

(Middleberg/Ross 2000), many also complain about having tosift through useless information to find relevant and credibleinformation (Houston 1999).

Still, most researchers agree that today's journalist mustlearn how to use these new online tools (Splichal 1993, Wend land 1996,Graves 2000).

Davenport, Fico and Weinstock (1996) go so far as to predictthat these new tools will require a different kind of reporter, one with a newmix of skills that rely less on observation and interviews and more on electronicinformation. The Web presents a challenge to newspapers, which according toSinger (2001) must reassess their roles as they moveonline. This new world of communication technology provides many challenges for mass communicationresearchers, who have a lot to learn about how journalists use the Internet(Stempel and Stewart

2000) Ultimately, the Web presents challenges to journalismeducators, who must teach their students how to use these newtools and, importantly, how to evaluate online sources (Ketterer 1998). For all these reasons,the Internet provides many important opportunities for communicationresearch.

Diffusion and Innovation

This article is limited to how the World Wide Web and e-mail areused by

one specific group of journalists:science writers. As a theoretical framework for

the study, we turn to the diffusion theory which describeshow innovations

spread throughout society. According to Rogers (1995), aquality of

"innovativeness" is related to a person's willingness to try new products.

39 Web and E-Mail Page 9

Therefore, the diffusion theory may be applied to theInternet, potentially yielding

important information about early users.

Researchers have used diffusion theory to look at computersin general

(Dutton, Rogers, and Jun, 1987); at gender differencesin adoption behavior

(Gegen and Straub 1997); and at news media consumptionand technology

adoption (Reagan 1989 and 1991). Having a favorableattitude about innovation

and change and having some experience with computers canmake a difference

in adoption (Minsky and Marin 1999). The ease oflearning and being able to

show the benefits of using new systems may alsolead to successful adoption of

technology (Adams and Nelson 1992, Hunter and Allen1991).

This article does not attempt to provide a completediscussion of diffusion

theory which is discussed elsewhere. However, it isimportant to remember that

in the diffusion process, Rogers identifies fivecategories of adapters. These are:

Innovatorseager to try new ideas; Early Adaptershighdegree of opinion and

leadership; Early Majorityinteract frequently with peers, butseldom hold

leadership roles; Late Majorityskeptical and often adapt outof economic

necessity; and Laggardstraditionals for whom the point ofreference is the past.

In a study linking diffusion theory to Internet use, Howard,Rainie and

Jones (2001) found that an Internet users' willingness to beinnovative, as

defined by Rogers, was more important than demographics inpredicting people's

feelings about and use of the Net. These researchers identified fourcategories of

Internet users: Netizensinnovative and aggressive users, whohave

incorporated the Internet into their work and home lives; UtilitariansuseInternet

40 Web and E-Mail Page 10 as a tool and log onfrom home everyday, but less intent in use;

Experimentersuse Internet to retrieve information;and Newcomersare still

learning their way around the Internet.

Trumbo et al. (2001) recently used the diffusionframework to analyze the

spread of Internet use among science writers.In their two-part study, these

researchers found that the diffusion-based conceptof favorableness predicted an

enthusiasm for the Web among the journalistssurveyed.

Study Design and Research Questions

This research project extends the work by Trumbo etal (2001) which

determined that the Web and e-mail use by membersof the National Association

of Science Writers (NASW) is firmly established.These researchers also

speculated that because of the technologicallyadvanced nature of the science

beat, science journalists may be ahead of typicaljournalists when it comes to

using the Internet.

We wanted to investigate the processes and meaningsinvolved in Web

and e-mail use more than was possible through thequantitatively-oriented

surveys of the earlier study, so weelected to complete a series of in-depth

interviews with a subset of the NASW survey participants.To guide our interview

project, we set three goals: The first was to gather richdescriptions from these

science journalists so we might identify and detail thematic wayse-mail and the

Web are changing science journalism. The second was todevelop a diagram to

help explain the most noteworthy changes related to the useof e-mail and the

4t Web and E-Mail Page 11

Web in the work of the science writers wecontacted. The third was to consider

how all this information might enlighten ourunderstanding of diffusion theory.

Drawing on those goals, our literature reviewand earlier findings, we

posed the following research questions aboute-mail:

Research Question 1: How are science journalistsusing e-mail in their work?

Research Question 2: How has e-mail changedthe work process for science

journalists?

Research Question 3: How do science journalistsfeel about e-mail's influence on

their field of work generally and on their ownwork specifically?

We also posed the following questionsabout the Web:

Research Question 4: How are science journalistsusing the Web in their work?

Research Question 5: How has the Web changedwork for science journalists?

Research Question 7: How do science journalistsfeel about the Web's influence

on their field of workgenerally and on their own work specifically?

Research Question 8: Do science journalists express concernabout the quality

of Web-based information?

Finally, we posed the following questions aboutthese new technologies:

Research Question 9: What consistent patternsbetween themes do the

journalists express related to the use of e-mail and theWeb?

Research Question 10: Do these interviews inform ourunderstanding of diffusion

of information via e-mail and the Web in anyway(s)?

42 Web and E-Mail Page 12

Method

To answer these questions, we conducted a seriesof open-ended phone

interviews using a semi-structured "interview guideapproach" similar to that

discussed by Patton (1990). That is, topics andissues were specified in advance,

but each interviewer was free to determine the sequenceand wording of

questions during the interview.

A total of thirty-six survey respondents had previouslyindicated that they

would be willing to be interviewed. So, we contactedeach potential interviewee

by e-mail to determine whether he/she was stillinterested in participating in a

phone interview and to establish a specific time forthe phone call. We

interviewed twenty one individuals from that pool ofrespondents (See below).

The science writers we contacted worked for a varietyof science

information outlets including newspapers, magazines,television, radio and the

web. Moreover, they represented a cross-section of thekinds of careers related

to science journalism. Eleven identified themselves asfreelancers; two identified

themselves as editors; the rest identified themselves aswriters or reporters.

While a few of the writers covered medicine or healthexclusively, most covered a

broad range of scientific topics. All of those we interviewedhad covered science

for at least five years, with about half working in thisspecialty area for ten years

or more.

Each phone interview lasted 20-30 minutes and was taperecorded after

receiving verbal permission from the respondent. All completedinterviews were

transcribed, save one which was inaudible. We conducted anadditional interview

43 Web and E-Mail Page 13 to replace that one and bring our sample up to twenty. (A listingof the interview questions can be found in Appendix A.)

Following Boyantis (1998), we decided to use each interview as a unit of analysis and to look at the response to each question as the unit of coding.We wanted to inductively identify themes or recurring ideas to use for a latercontent analysis across all interviews. Thus, we used a data-driven approach to coding which followed five steps: a) reducing the raw information, b) identifyingthemes within subsamples, c) comparing themes across subsamples, d) creating acode, and e) determining the reliability of the code.

A theme was defined operationally as specific key words or impliedideas in order to identify "a pattern found in the information that- at a minimum describes and organizes the possible observations and - at maximum interprets aspects of the phenomenum being studied" (p.4.) Potential themes were identified using the written transcriptions by two trained coders working independently. One interviewer found 15 themes present in the interviewswhile the other interviewer found only 12. Since the same 12 themes had been identified by both coders, the decision was made to use them to establish a preliminary codebook.

Because we wanted to ensure high quality codes, the code developer specified five things for each theme: 1) a label or name, 2) a definition of what the theme concerns (i.e. the characteristics or issues constituting the theme) 3) a description of how to know when the theme occurs (i.e. indicators to "flag" the Web and E-Mail Page 14 theme) 4) exclusions or special conditions, and 5)examples, positive and

negative, to eliminate confusion when coding. (See Boyatzis1998, pg. 53).

Once the codebook was developed, the codes were applied to asubset of

six interviews by two different coders. Inter-coder reliability wascalculated using

this formula for co-efficient of reliability:

C.R. = 2 M

N1 + N2 where C.R. = coefficient of reliability, M= Number of

Coding Decisions agreed upon and N= Total Number of CodingDecisions Made

by Each Coder ( Poindexter and McCombs, 2000).

Our initial coefficients of reliability (or what Boyantis, 1998, calls

percentage agreement on presence) were as follows:

Facilitates communication (100 percent agreement); E-Mail Interviews,(83

percent agreement); Spans geographical boundaries and time zones,(100

percent agreement); Research tool (100 percent agreement) ;Skepticism, (83

percent agreement); Changes personal contact, (66 percentagreement) ;

Speeds information, (83 percent agreement); Increasesproductivity, (83 percent

agreement); Reduces paper, (83 percent agreement) ; Enthusiasmfor Web and

Email, (83 percent agreement); Work Hours expand, (100 percentagreement);

Good judgment, (83 percent agreement).

To raise the reliability for the Changes personal contact theme, we

reviewed all coding decisions and modified the codebook description toavoid

future discrepancies. The revised description was applied to sixadditional

interviews independently by both coders resulting in 100 percent agreement.We Web and E-Mail Page 15 incorporated all the reliable descriptions into the final codebook to use for our analysis.

Detailed notes were kept by the primary researcher about what key words or ideas accompanied the expression ofeach theme when the analysis was being conducted. These notes were later used to identify patterns in themes across interviews or to locate differencesbetween the ways interviewees talked about a particular theme.

Notes were also kept about potential relationships between themes for later exploration using all the interviews. Morse (1994) calls this process

"synthesizing" to describe the development of a composite or typical pattern of behavior, while still identifying variations in the data. Both primary researchers completed this portion of the analysis process. Together they developed and confirmed elements which would eventually become the diagrams shown in the results section. Finally, we asked questions and looked for answers to try tolink our data to diffusion theory.

Results

The science writers we spoke with recognized the potential inherent in e- mail and the Web to transform the practices of sharing scientific information as well as in changing their daily work practices. They spoke both of changes which

had already occurred as well as anticipated changes as the new technologies

become refined and as they find ways to use them more effectively. Twelve

different themes concerning the use of e-mail and the Web were uncovered in Web and E-Mail Page 16 our interviews. These themes are marked in italics throughout the resultssection of this paper and are explained further in Appendix B' All the writers we interviewed agreed that e-mail, in particular, has changed the way journalists work by facilitating communication with sources, with other journalists, and with the audiences or readers they seek to inform. Repeatedly our respondents used words like "efficiency" and "easier" to describe their experiences to incorporate e- mail in their daily work.

For instance, using e-mail means that journalists can contact sources readily. One writer stated simply, "E-mail is a tool of convenience." (Interview 4).

This convenience is particularly important in contacting the busy scientists and medical professionals that serve as primary sources for rapidly changing scientific information. One of the science writers said,

It's simply easier to contact people and to ask them specific questions... it makes it convenient when people are busy... and reporters and scientists are. It makes it convenient in a way (the) telephone never was... Itmakes me a lot more efficient in terms of aiming what I'm doing, in putting my efforts in the right place, not wasting time. (Interview 2).

Another remarked,

It (e-mail) has become kind of indispensable as a system of keeping in touch with people. You can keep in touch with more people. You can communicate better. (Interview 3).

Similarly another respondent pointed out that e-mail was the "main mode of communication with my clients." (Interview 14).

Several interviewees pointed out that previously reluctant sources respond more readily using e-mail. Thus, they could get sources via e-mail thatthey wouldn't get otherwise.

47 Page 17 Web and E-Mail

A lot of people who won't pick uptheir phone will respond to e-mail because they're on their computers alot, or they just don't like talking on the phone. A lot of times what I'lldo is I'll send an e-mail to researchers saying, 'Saw your paper, I'minterested in writing about it. Is there atime we can set up to talk?' ...It leaves it up to them and theirdiscretion when they can respond. (Interview12).

E-mail serves as a source of informationin other ways as well. them Most of our interviewees mentionedusing e-mail information that comes to

through listservs or other means togather important scientific information.

I tend to use e-mail, not to receive pressreleases, but to receive what I call filtered information. That is,particular sources that sift through research information and preparedigests, and I think many, most of the ideas we get now for articles comefrom these sort of e-mail digests that we've subscribed to. (Interview10).

Others do more enthusiastically receive pressreleases, especially from

respected sources they have learned totrust.

I'm on listservs and automatic pressrelease alerts... I get his little digest of leads three or four times a week,and I get them from Johns Hopkins University... the best in the country... I mean,(these sources) are amazing at getting coverage of theirstuff, simply because they have such a great e-mail alert system.(Interview 8).

Respondents also commented consistentlythat e-mail is helpful in

clarifying information or doing follow-upquestioning.

It (e-mail) facilitates review of the moretechnical articles also because now I can write it, sendit to my researchers to look through, do afast check if you will, and they can have itback to me in a couple of days. The mail would have taken longer than that.(Interview 5).

Similarly, one science editor remarked,

You can kick back pieces of text withcomments, and then comments on the comments and so forth, so easy toforward, cut and paste, show it to everyone, send copies around,have it checked a lot of ways. (Interview 10).

48 Web and E-Mail Page 18

E-mail also helps contact new or difficult to reach sources in distant

locations helping to span boundaries that existed when using previous means of

connecting.

At the moment, I'm sitting in a cabin in the Sierra foothills. And this morning already, I've communicated with a doctor in Chicago for the Arthritis Foundation, with an ALS specialist in London... With an editor at Planet RX in San Franscisco... with my website technician who's in Canada... with a former reporter and her Neimann Fellowship at Harvard... And that's just this morning. (Interview 1)

Several mentioned not only the ease in contacting distant sources, but pointed

out that email helps in interpreting when languages are different.

I think it also smoothes out the language difficulty. Sometimes it's just easier to read English or read French or whatever the language may be, rather than to have to decipher it on the fly. (Interview 5).

Time is also a previous barrier that is now alleviated through e-mail

communication. For example, another science writer said that with email,

You're not limited by the time available.It used to be that you could only communicate with people, you know, basically during working hours... But you can send an e-mail in the middle of the night and get your answer in the morning. It has expanded the time available to communicate. (Interview 3).

The science writers we spoke with differed in whether or not they chose to

do completely e-mail interviews. Some seemed to prefer this means for their

interviews:

In about, say, 24 (to) 48 hours, I had managed to talk to people in Israel, Japan, Switzerland, England, all around the world. And it was just remarkable to me that I was able to reach these (busy) people to get the information 1 needed, and to be able to do it so rapidly, and not to be chasing after them by telephone, which would have been my practice before. It was a real timesaver for me. (Interview 9).

49 Web and E-Mail Page 19

Other respondents still rely on traditional means of personal contact with sources:

I still need to have a voice unless I'm very close to a source.I still need personal contact from time to time. There may be times when you're tempted to cut a corner because of time pressure- and you need to be very careful how you do that but, it simply is a timesaver and you need to use good judgment in deciding when an e-mail interview is as good as a voice interview... Voice is still the ultimate. (Interview 6).

Overall, our respondents seemed to agree that e-mail is facilitating communication and most regarded the way it is changing their work positively, though some problems with e-mail communication in widely distributing inaccurate information were noted. Overall the respondents we talked to seemed to agree with the idea expressed by one: The thing that is really changing the practice of journalism is e-mail... E-mail has changed the nature of communication. (Interview 2).

However, few would argue that the Web has also caused pronounced changes in reporting scientific information, though most of our sources showed more skepticism about using information from the Web.

The trouble with the Web is that you have to consider the source. Yeah, if you're going to the Washington Post or the New York Times, you're going to get a good level of trust. But there's a lot of garbage out there. A lot of garbage, and a lot of it is very hard to see whether or not it's commercial... Even the American Cancer Society has an axe to grind, has an agenda, has a bias.It may be a perfectly good bias, but it's there. They've got their own little mindset. Anybody can put up a Website about a disease and sometimes these are very very helpful, but sometimes they're not... There's a lot of rumor... there's a lot of plain garbage. (Interview 7).

0 Web and E-Mail Page 20

I don't like chatlines; I don't do that stuff.It would be like using as sources from the people in the corner McDonalds. There's no way I'm going to be able to trust anything like that. (Interview 8).

Still others said that they were not more skeptical of web information than for

information from other, more traditional, journalistic sources.

I'll treat it (a news release or a statement released by the government over the Web) the same way I treat paper coming through the mail that was issued by a government agency, a university, a company...an environmental group or some other interest group.It goes through the same filter. There is obviously a lot of junk out there... I don't use risky stuff at all. (Interview 6).

The bottom line for our interviewees is that journalists and others using the Web

(such as consumers of health information) must exert good judgment about

evaluating the credibility of sources and determining the motive and bias that a

Website creator has regarding the topic they've presented.

Even though the science writers expressed skepticism about Web-based

information, every single respondent spoke of using the web as a research tool,

one they used to seek a wide variety of information. For instance, science writers

frequently look to the web for background information, for keeping in touch with

colleagues, for finding potential sources, as well as for identifying more

specialized sources.

I think that it's made it a lot easier for me as a journalist to find certain types of information, to track people down, to get information from databases, to get in touch with scientists, to find scientists who might be working on obscure studies or studies that haven't been published yet, urn, to access libraries that aren't where I am. (Interview 13).

Basically, I use the web as a way of keeping up with associates in the work and as a way of doing my own fact checking. If I need someone's full title or phone number I can usually find it somewhere on the web... Those are the main uses. (Interview 14).

51 Web and E-Mail Page 21

Some science writers have learned to use the Web to get access to new kinds of

Information and thus, for exploring new story ideas.

I use the Web mostly for getting story ideas that I wouldn't be able to get

unless I were on the phone, all the time, all over the country. Being in (a

large but remote city), trying to cover national stories, it is sometimes

difficult to really get plugged into what's happening at MIT or Stanford or

some centers where some really cutting-edge science is going on.I use

the Web a lot to look at other universities to see (what is going on.)

(Interview 12).

So the Web is increasing story ideas and access to stories from new locales for some journalists

Other writers have come to use the Web to find published research articles.

I do a lot of medical writing.I was just overjoyed when the National Institute for Health made Med line freely available to people. It used to be something you had to subscribe to... Well, now I can at least do the Med line searching at home, pull it all up, print out what I want or cite the articles, read the abstracts, figure out which ones I really need (and go get them)... But with this next level that's coming it's going to be that much easier, cause I am going to be able to get into real full-text articles, research articles that I want to read, and they're going to have it set up so that if you're reading one, and it has a footnote that you're interested in, you can click on the footnote and it'll take you to that next article. (Interview 8).

Science writers also find the Web a useful source for information about cutting edge research or breaking news. Here's a detailed example:

I was just finishing up a section of my book having to do with testing for

52 Web and E-Mail Page 22

Cervical cancer. And a new test for humanpapilloma virus was just approved by the FDA, and so there was a barrageof information on the Web, and some of it was from the company thatmanufactures this test. Well, we're used to that sort of thing, but I also hadthe advantage of seeing comments by various physicians on this test,medical journal articles citing it and showing an evaluation of it indifferent circumstances, and I had because of the news release (online),the name of the scientist who actually was the medical director at the companythat manufactures it, and with that information I called him andinterviewed him, and got quite a lot of information fromhim very fast, that I was then able to verify with other people, and so altogether, I think it reallyimproved the depth and the accuracy of my report. (Inteview9)

The latest Web-based technology can be usedfor transferring information other than pure text and these capabilies arealso being used by some but not all of the science writers we talked to. One editorreported,

We're an illustrated magazine and we spend a lotof time looking at visual material on the Web , for photos and illustration, and weacquire most of the raw material for illustration digitally now, sortof suck it off the Web. Not that we publish that, but you get, you know, youfind out what pictures people have of different things, and then you contactthem. But almost everybody's got some kind of sample of what they have onthe Web now. ( Interview 10).

Another writer pointed out,

I have a few sources I routinely check. And then I end upgetting on the phone, calling to see if they have diagrams or photos to gowith it. Some of the better sites will have those on-line. So you canmake contact with your expert, go to the site, downloadthe photo, and have a complete package to send to the editor. And I'm seeing that moreand more- as the editors want their writers to provide the photos as well.I think that's because they're generally available on the internet. Notnecessarily in the right format. But they are available. (Interview 5).

Science writers clearly use the Web to gather information asthey go about their

work in a variety of ways and for a variety of purposes,often they noted,

removing tedious aspects they experienced before this newtechnology was

available to them.

533 Web and E-Mail Page 23

An important function for both e-mail and theWeb in the area of science

communication is to span boundaries across timeand space for science writers.

For many, this means new kinds of story ideas or new waysof more readily

working with distant sources.

I can do a quick Web search, a lot of times I canfind somebody who's doing up-to-date work on subjects as diverse ashearing in crickets to... oh, freeze tolerance in woolly bear caterpillars. SoI can use the Web, and I can talk about local insects, and introduce people tonotions that they wouldn't ever be introduced to if I just relied on local resources.So, I do that every week. (Interview 15).

Together e-mail and the Web are changing the waysjournalists work. All

but two of our interviewees pointed out that e-mail andthe Web speeds

information in their worklife. In fact, this theme stood out mostin both individual

interviews as well as across all interviews, as being a prime reasonfor the

consistent expressions of enthusiasm about these newtechnologies.

I find a lot of times that people will respond to e-mailquickly, where a phone call might take a couple of days to return. But if they'rein the office they usually respond, and I can get an interview set up prettyquick. As far as using the Web for work, let's see...well I do all the time. (Interview 15)

Or consider this:

One of the amazing emergent properties of the Web is that when you use certain key words and permutations and actually using languagethat I would only know as a specialist... You can zero in on a largeproportion of members of a relative, increably specialized community, prettyquickly. (Interview 4).

Some of the respondents mentioned ways the Web and e-mail speeds

information in their work with less enthusiasm, stating that the newtechnologies

were making their work more competitive, moredemanding or increasing work

54 Web and E-Mail Page 24 hours. Interestingly, some of the same respondentslisted positive and negative effects from quickly speeding information.

There are a lot of magazines, particularly thecutting edge magazines, things like Popular Science, for example, ifthe information is more than a day or two old, it doesn't go in. Even thoughthey're a print magazine , you have to be fast now.(Interview 5).

Or this one:

It (the Web) also puts more stress on journalists.It used to be when you were doing print journalist youmaybe had a couple of editions to update. Now on the internet, you will be updating constantly.It also, I think, tends to encourage revision, which can be a goodthing, but also you can revise too much. (Interview 1)

Later in the interview, this same repondent stated,

It (the Web) tends to fuel my workaholic... I have twocomputers on at the moment. My laptop that I brought with me andalso the computer that my host has here. So, because of time, for example,I've checked the sales ranking on my book on Amazon this morning... I wouldn'tbe able to do that ordinarily. So it just keeps me much more in contactwith my work. (Interview 1).

Because both positive and negative work results were linkedto the speeds information quality of e-mail and the Web andbecause this particular theme was mentioned so often and with such emphasisby the respondents, we

looked across all the interviews to see how different ideas werelinked to speeds

information. The resulting links between themes in ourinterview data are shown

in Diagram 1. On the positive side, as the Web and e-mailspeeds information,

journalists are able to complete somewhat tedious tasks moreeasily-such as fact

checking and playing phone tag with sources. Thus, in these waysthe speeding

of information can increase productivity. On the negativeside, though, journalists

55 Web and E-Mail Page 25 must respond to a quicker news cycle,quicker deadlines, more competitiveness in their work so it's possible for their work hoursto expand and for them as well as to create other job-relatedstresses related to time management.

Conclusions

E-mail and the Web are having a tremendous impact onthe practices of science journalism and on the lives of science writersaccording to our study.

Importantly, our sources told us that although thesetechnologies speed information in ways that benefit their work and thedissemination of information, not all the effects are positive. This discoveryabout how speeding information works in different ways is, we believe, the greatest contributionof our research project..

More research is needed to verify our projections aboutthe processes underlying speeding information with other sciencecommunicators and with

other groups. Developing such a detailed base ofinformation could supplement

and expand the existing literature about the diffusionof innovations in important

new ways- perhaps evenforeshadowing some coming trends as e-mail and Web

use continue to expand.

Our interview work also supports the content by Trumbo etal. (2001) that

trust is linked to enthusiasm, particularly when it comes tothe Web. Our

respondents appeared cautious, but generally enthusiastic about manyof the

changes brought about by e-mail and the Web. Enthusiasm wasless likely when

respondents heard about or experienced the rapid spread ofmisinformation or

56 Page 26 Web and E-Mail rumor. Thus, theyspoke about the need for usingthe new tools with caution and using the new tools urged future journalismstudentsto learn about and practice that and developing good judgment.Additional research is needed in this area so

the highest quality of accurateinformation is reported to the public..

We also found some evidence,albeit limited, in our interviews for

Netizens, Utilitarians and Experimentsusing the categories developedby

Howard, Raime and Jones. Thatis, our Internet users tended toshow

enthusiasm and loyalty to using theWeb and e-mail in new ways.They have all

moved beyond the Newcomerstage of diffusion. Furtherexploration of those work in categories could yield additionaldetails about how diffusion processes

spreading scientific informationvia e-mail and the Web. Moreover,research

could begin to tell us about the processesunderlying the diffusion of scientific

breakthroughs and other importantscientific information amongst thegeneral

public. Such research is vitallyimportant in the times ahead.

In this project, we found that ourinterviews answered, to some extent,all

the research questions posed.E-mail and the Web are changingthe nature of

science communication in significantand potentially far-reaching ways.We fully

expect that these new technologiesand the ways journalists use willcontinue to

dramatically change what we learn andhow we learn about science inthe future.

57 Web and E-Mail Page 27

We chose quotes to include in the articlethat reflected ideas expressed similarly in several interviews. In otherwords, care was taken when writingNOT to use anomalies or exceptions in ourwriteup. Where a quoted example was less frequently expressed or where itrepresented an unusual example in our sample, the text introducing the theme notesthis.

58 References

Aborn, M. 1988. Telescience:Scientific communication in the information age. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 495: 10-13. Adams, D. A., and Nelson, R. R. 1992.Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of informationtechnology: A replication. MIS Quarterly16 (2): 227-248. Althaus, S. 1997. Computer-mediatedcommunication in the university classroom: An experiment with on-linediscussions. Communication Education 46 (3): 158-174. Atkin, D. J., and Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf,K.A. 1998. Understanding Internet adoption as telecommunications behavior.Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42 (4): 475-490. Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. TransformingQualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. ThousandOaks: Sage.

Bunting, S. and Russell, C. 1998. Useof electronic mail for concept synthesis: An international collaborative project.Qualitative Health Research 8 (1): 128.

Cassell, M. M., Jackson, C. and Cheuvront,B. 1998. Health communication on the Internet: An effective channel for healthbehavior change? Journal of Health Communication 3(1): 71-78. Cerf, V. 2000. Cerf's up into the newmillennium. [On-line]. Available: http://www.wcom.com/about the company/cerfs up/

Chamberlain, M. A. 1996. Health communication:making the most of new media technologiesan international overview. Journalof Health Communication 1(1): 43-50. Cochran, W. 1997. Journalism's new geography:How electronic tools alter the culture and practice of newsgathering. TheElectronic Journal of Communication 7 (2). Conrad, P. 1999. Uses of expert sources, quotesand voice in the reporting of genetics in the news, Public Understandingof Science 8 (4): 285-302. Crowther, G. and Goldhaber, G. 2001. Face-to-face ore-mail: The medium makes a difference. Communication World 18(5): 23-26. Davenport, L., Fico, F., & Weinstock, D. (1996).Computers in newsrooms of Michigan's newspapers. Newspaper ResearchJournal 17 (3-4), 14-29. Dimmick, J., Kline, S. and Stafford, L. 2000. Thegratification niches of personal e-mail and the telephone: Competition, displacement,and complementarity. Communication Research 27 (2): 227-248.

59 Dorman, S. 1998. Using E-mail to enhanceinstruction. Journal of School Health 68 (6), 260. Dutton, W. H., Rogers, E. M., and Jun,S. H. 1987. Diffusion and social impacts of personal computers. CommunicationResearch 14 (2): 219-250. Esrock, S. L., and Leichty, G. B. 1998.Social responsibility and corporate web pages: Self-presentation oragenda-setting? Public Relations Review 24 (3): 305-319. Ey, C. (1995). Message is clear:E-mail use skyrocketing. Business Journal (Phoenix) 16 (5): 25-26.

Flaherty, L. M., Pearce, K.J., and Rubin,R.B. 1998. The Internet and face-to-face communication: Not functional alternatives.Communication Quarterly 46 (3): 250-268.

Garrison, B. 1995. On-line services as reportingtools: Daily newspaper use of commercial databases in 1994. NewspaperResearch Journal 16 (4): 74-86. Newspaper .1997. On-line services, Internet in 1995 newsrooms. Research Journal 18 (3-4): 79-93.

.2000. Journalists' perceptions of onlineinformation gathering problems. Journalism & Mass CommunicationQuarterly 77 (3): 500-514.

Garton, L., and Wellman, B. 1995. Social impactsof electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature.Communication Yearbook 18: 434-453. Gefen, D., and Straub, D. W. 1997. Genderdifferences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the TechnologyAcceptance Model. MIS Quarterly 21 (4): 389-401. Graves, B. 2000. Gathering context and contacts.Nieman Reports 54 (4): 63.

Grupp, R. and Margaritis, W. 2000. Face off: Whoshould own the web site? Public Relations Strategist 5 (4): 30-35. Harris, L. M. (Ed.) 1995. Health and the newmedia. Technologies Transforming Personal and Public Health. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum. Heath, R. L. 1998. New communication technologies:An issues management point of view. Public Relations Review 24 (3):273-288. Howard, P.E.N., Rainie, L., and Jones, S. 2001.Days and nights on the Internet: The impact of a diffusing technology. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 45 (3): 383-404. Houston, B. 1999. Computer-assisted reporting: Apractical guide. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

60 Hunter, J. and Allen, M. 1992. Adaptionto electronic mail. Journal ofApplied Communication Research 20 (3): 254-274.

Johnson, M. 1997. Public relations andtechnology: Practitioners' perspectives. Journal of Public Relations Research9 (3): 213-236. Kent, M. and Taylor, M. 1998. Buildingdialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review24 (3): 321-334. Ketterer, S. 1998. Teaching studentshow to evaluate and use online resources, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly52 (4): 4-14. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T.1984. Social psychological aspectsof computer-mediated communication. AmericanPsychologist 39 (10): 1123- 1134. Lievrouw, L. and Carley, K. 1990. Changingpatterns of communication among scientists in an era of telescience.Technology in Society 12 (4): 457-477. Marlow, E. 1996. Electronic publicrelations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. McMillan, S. 1999. Health communication andthe Internet: Relations between interactive characteristics and the mediumand site creators, content and purpose. Health Communication11 (4): 375-390. Meadows, J. 1986. The growth of sciencepopularization: A historical sketch. Impact of Science on Technology 36:341-346. Merrill, J.C., Lee, J. and Friedlander, E.J.1990. Modem Mass Media. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row. Middleberg/Ross. 2000. Available on line at:http://www.middleberg.com/

Minsky, B. D., and Marin, D. B. 1999. Whyfaculty members use e-mail: The role of individual differences in channel choice.The Journal of Business Communication 36 (2): 194-217. Morse, J. M. 1994. "Emerging from the Data":The Cognitive Processes of Analysis in Qualitative Inquiry. In Critical Issuesin Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Nelkin, D. 1995. Selling science: How the press coversscience and technology. New York: W.H. Freeman. Nielsen/Net Ratings. 2002. Available at:http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/ Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation andResearch Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

Phillips, S., and Eisenberg, E. 1993. Strategic usesof electronic mail in organizations. Electronic Journal of Communication3 (2).

61 Poindexter, P.M., McCombs, M.E. 2000.Research in Mass Communication. New York: Bedford/ St. Martins.

Reagan, J. 1989. New technologiesand news use: Adopters vs.nonadopters. Journalism Quarterly 66: 871-887. satisfaction the best predictor? .(1991). Technology adoption: Is Journalism Quarterly 68: 325-332. _ A Rice, R. E., and Case, D. 1983.Computer-based messaging in the university: description of use and utility. Journalof Communication 33: 131-152. Rogers, C. 2000. Making the audience akey participant in the science communication process, Science andEngineering Ethics 6: 553-557. Rogers, E. M. 1983; 1995. Diffusionof innovations. New York: The FreePress. Schaefermeyer, M.J. and Sewell, E.H.1988. Communicating by electronicmail. American Behavioral Scientist 32 (2):112-123. Schmitz, J., and Fulk, J. 1991.Organizational colleagues, media richness,and electronic mail. Communication Research18 (4): 487-523. Selnow, G. 1988. Using interactivecomputer to communicate scientific information, American Behavioral Scientist32 (2): 124-135. Singer, J. 1997. Changes and consistencies:Newspaper journalists contemplate online future. Newspaper Research Journal18 (1-2): 2-18. research into their changing .1998. Online journalists: Foundations for roles. Journal of Computer MediatedCommunication 4 (1), available online at: http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue1/singer.html newspapers' gatekeeping role .2001. The metro wide web: changes in online. Journalism & Mass CommunicationQuarterly 78 (1): 65-80. Splichal, S. 1993. How Florida newspapers aredealing with access to computerized government information.Newspaper Research Journal 13 &14 (4 & 1): 73-83.

Sproul', L., and Kiesler, S. 1991. Computers,networks, and work. Scientific American 265 (3): 116-123.

Steinfield, C. 1983. Communicating viaelectronic mail: Patterns and predictors of use in organizations. Ph.D. diss. University of SouthernCalifornia, Los Angeles. systems. In Annual . 1986a. Computer-mediated communication Review of Information Science andTechnology, Vol. 21, edited by M. E. Williams, 167-202. White Plains, NY:Knowledge Industry.

62 communication in an organizational .1986b. Computer-mediated setting: Explaining task-relatedand socioemotional uses. In Communication Yearbook Vol. 9, edited by M. L.McLaughlin, 777-804. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Stempel, G. and Stewart, R. 2000. TheInternet provides both opportunities and challenges for mass communicationresearchers, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (3):541-548. Sundar, S., Narayan, S., Obregon, R. andUppal, C. 1998. Does web advertising work? Memory for print vs. online media,"Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 75 (4): 822-835.

Sundar, S. and Nass, C. 2001.Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication 51 (i): 52-72.

Thomsen, S. 1995. Using online data basesin corporate issues management. Public Relations Review 21 (2): 103-122.

Trumbo, C., Sprecker,K., Dumlao, R. Yun,G., and Duke, S. 2001. Use of e-mail and the web by science writers. ScienceCommunication 22(4): 347-378.

U.S. Department of Commerce. October 2000.Falling through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion.

Walsh, J.P., Kucker, S., Maloney, N.G. andGabbay, S. 2000. Connecting minds: Computer-mediated communication and scientificwork. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 51(14): 1295-1305. Wend land, M. 1996. Using the Internet: a crucialskill for journalists. RTNDA Communicator 50 (9): 38-44.

63 Diagram 1: Speeds Information Relatesto Increased Productivity

The Positives:

1) Faster responses to questions and quickerfact checking leads to quicker turn around time when writing a story.

2) Time freed from tedious tasks (fact checking orlooking for details in print) can be spent developing new stories.

3) Information coming more quickly from distant sources means possibilities are increased for international stories orfor developing new angles for local science stories.

4) Getting information and visuals quickly canhelp meet and beat deadlines.

5) Breaking science news can be accessed readilyvia the Web and maybe e-mal.

Greater Productivity

BEST COPYAVAILABLE 64 Diagram 2: Speeds InformationRelates to Work Stress

The Negatives:

1) More competition on stories meansthe writer needs to stay ahead to get the scoop.

2) Less time to reflect on the meaning of storiesis available to draw carefully conceived interpretations.

3) Too many choices to make about possiblestories can be overwhelming.

4) Increased likelihood of incompleteincomplete, false of misleading stories or story ideas (that may be widelydistributed about believed by consumers).

5) More hours on the job may be needed tokeep up with breaking science news posted via the web or e-mail.

Increased Work Stress

BE-61WW0\ 65 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Submitted for: AEJMC 2002 National Convention Science Communication Interest Group August 7-10, 2002 Miami Beach, Florida

James F. Carstens Park Fellow, Ph.D. Program The School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

CB# 3365 1000 Smith Level Rd. 384 Carroll Hall Apt. U-10 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3365 Carrboro, NC 27510 Fax: 919.962-0620 919.960.5246 [email protected] [email protected]

66 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Abstract

Aldo Leopold, who wrote his seminal work, A Sand County Almanac in 1949, is now credited with formulating and articulating some of the basic ethical and philosophical tenets that lead to the development of biology conservation, land ethics, biocentrism, deep ecology, and biodiversity. Analysis of the initial treatment and reception of the book by reviewers shows that only one reviewer, Hal Borland, recognized and emphasized the important ethical questions and concerns that Leopold raised regarding man's relationship to nature.

1 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Introduction

A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, published in 1949, has become recognized as one of the earliest and principal works of the modern environmental movement.' Leopold is credited with formulating and articulating some of the basic ethical and philosophical tenets that lead to the development of biology conservation, land ethics, biocentrism, deep ecology, and biodiversity.

Leopold died a week after A Sand County Almanac was accepted for publication, and although other works have been collected and published posthumously, it remains his seminal work. Although Leopold is now considered a prophet and the book is revered among environmentalists, A Sand County

Almanac never achieved the initial public notoriety associated with Rachel

Carson's A Silent Spring.2

Perhaps this is because Carson's book dealt with what would become known as the first modern, science-caused environmental crisis: the debilitating

'Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac (Oxford University Press, 1949).

2Rachel Carson, A Silent Spring ( Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962).

63 2 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

effects of the chemical DDT on the life cycle of birds, and the public understood

the direct cause-and-effect relationship and the resulting harm. But Leopold's

book had nothing catchy about it. It was presented as a "nature book,"a journal

of musings about nature by a man who had worked his whole lifeas a forester,

ranger, and conservationist.

It was not until the environment became a national issue is the late 1960s

and early 1970s that A Sand County Almanac began to receive recognition that

had been previously reserved to a small core of literary naturalists and

conservationists (before "environmentalists" were part of the scene). As public

and political interest in the environment grew, including increasing numbersof

members in activist and advocacy groups, the discipline of the environment also

grew and expanded. And like any new and changing social, political, or academic

movement, it started researching its history and roots.

And while there are several familiar and traditional Americannames

associated with "nature" and the "wilderness," such as Thoreau, Audubon, Muir,

Roosevelt, and Carson, it is Leopold who now receives credit for developing the foundation upon which much of the underpinnings of modem environmentalism rest.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the recognition of the importance of A

Sand County Almanac by examining the function of book reviews in thepress. By analyzing the content of the book reviews, the prominence of the reviewersand the types of publications they appeared in, this study will endeavor totrace the

69 3 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

initial treatment and reception of the book by reviewers, and possibly the path of

the book as it grew in stature and recognition. This recognition is correlated to

the growth of several parallel and related movements: that of conservation into

environmentalism, nature writing into environmental literature, the development

of the field of environmental ethics, which includes such concepts as biocentrism,

deep ecology and biodiversity. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to

examine the book's influence on these and other related areas, such as the

political, legal and educational changes that have resulted from the development

of these new areas of study.

Book reviews play an important role in the process of book publishing. The

modem book review has evolved from the discipline of literary criticism, which originated in the eighteenth century as technology enabled the large-scale

production of books.3

Because of space limitations in modern newspapers, the critical essay was shortened into a "review," which served the purpose of introducing the book to the public and also giving an evaluation of the importance of the work. This form was fully developed during the 1930s and '40s, when works by authors such as Hemingway, Lewis, Steinbeck and Sandburg were widely discussed.4

3Evelyn Oppenheimer, Oral Book Reviewing to Stimulate Reading: A Practical Guide in Technique for Lecture and Broadcast (Meutchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1980) ,1.

4Oppenheimer, 2.

70 4 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Important factors of a review include the publication it appeared in and how prominently it was placed, if the reviewer was a well-known authoror critic, and of course, the opinion expressed by the reviewer.

The academic disciplines of literary criticism and literary history have developed many diverse concepts and theories in the last half of the twentieth century, such as poststructuralism and deconstruction, but these ideasare usually restricted to academia and are not addressed in most reviews thatare targeted to the general reading public.5 As one scholarsays in discussing literary criticism:

English and American critics often assume that literary theory is the servant to a servant: its purpose is to assist the critic, whose task is to serve literature by elucidating its masterpieces. The test of critical writing is its success in enhancing our appreciation of literary works, and thetest of theoretical discussion is its success in providing instruments to help the critic provide better interpretations.6

5David H. Hirsch, The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticismafter Auschwitz (Hanover: Brown University Press, 1991), 5. Reader response and intentionalists debate: "Did meaning, if indeed there was such a thing at all, reside in the mind of the author, in the text, or in the perceiving mind?"

Thomas Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory (London: Verso, 1998, First edition, NLM 1976). 44. Eagleton established the following categories for a materialist criticism: General Mode of Production, Literary Mode of Production, General Ideology, Authorial Ideology, Aesthetic Ideology, and Text.

For a discussion of literary criticism and history, see: Ralph Cohen, ed. NewDirections in Literary History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974).

Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982),17. Culler identifies the following types of criticism: structuralism, reader-response, deconstruction, Marxist, pluralism,feminism, semiotics, psychoanalytic, hermeneutics, antithetical, etc.

6Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticismafter Structuralism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982),7.

71 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

The Writing Career of Aldo Leopold

At the time of his death in 1949 at the age of 61, Aldo Leopold was not known as a nature writer. He had written extensively over the course of his life, producing over one thousand essays, articles, reviews, handbooks, newsletters, reports and position papers.' These writings were the product of a lifetime spent working with the outdoors, as forester and ranger, and later as a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Wisconsin.8

These types of writings were aimed at his peers and fellow conservation workers and researchers. A brief example of some titles show that these works were hardly the type of writing that would be known outside of its field: Wild

Game as a Farm Crop (1930), Game Methods: The American Way (1931),

Report of a Game Survey of the North Central States (1931).8

'Peter A. Fritzell, Aldo Leopold, In: Nature Writing, ed. John Elder (New York. Scribners, 1996) 525-547.

8Curt Meine, Aldo Leopold, His Life and Work (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988).

8Curt Meine and Richard L. Knight, eds, The Essential Aldo Leopold. Quotations and Commentaries, (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1999).

72 6 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Indeed, if it had not been for the writing of A Sand County Almanac,

Leopold would still have an important place in the history of conservation,as he

was extremely well known and recognized within the field of biology conservation

and has been called the "father of the profession of wildlife management in

America."10 Leopold wrotea textbook, Game Management, which was published

in 1933 and was still in use in 1967 in many universities that taught wildlife

biology and management."

Leopold was educated at Yale and received his Master of Forestry degree

in 1909. He was to spend the next 35 years working and teaching in the

developing field of game and wildlife and naturalresource management, which

all fell under the umbrella of "conservation." It was during the mid 1940s, when

he was working as a member of the Wisconsin Conservation Commission and

trying to develop a campaign to convince the citizens of Wisconsin that the deer

population needed to be reduced, that he started trying to develop his ideas fora

new conservation ethic.12

'°Susan L. Flader, Thinking Likea Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude Toward Deer, Wolves, and Forests (Columbia, University of Missouri Press, 1974).

"Raymond F. Dasmann, "A Sand County Almanac.With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River. A Review" Quarterly Review of Biology, 42(3) (September 1967), 417.

12Flader, Thinking Like a Mountain

7 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Drawing upon and revising ideas that he had espoused in two earlier essays: Conservation Ethic and Biotic View of the Land, and adding his views about stewardship and responsibility, Leopold produced what is considered his seminal essay, The Land Ethic, which was published in A Sand County

Almanac.13 The earlier essay, Biotic View of the Land, has also become recognized as the first articulation of the concepts that developed into the field of ecology, and later, into what is now becoming recognized as one of, if not the most important tenet of environmentalism, that of biodiversity.14

Leopold was unique in that not only did he help redefine the "practical" side of early conservation by developing the field of fish and wildlife and forest management, but he developed philosophically along the way. He went from the traditional view that man is in charge of natural resources to use as seen fit, to the development of an "ecological conscience." He wrote that "we are only fellow- voyagers with other creatures in the odyssey of evolution" and that an ecological conscience requires that "'Homo sapiens (change) from conqueror of the land- community to plain member and citizen of it.It implies respect for his fellow members, and also respect for the community as such.'"15

13Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac

"Susan L. Flader, Thinking Like a Mountain

15Bill Deval, George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered (Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher 1985), 85.

74 8 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

This philosophy was later refined and expressed: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." This is perhaps one of his most famous quotations from A Land Ethic essay. Leopold learned extensively from his experience in game management, which showed him that a species could not be treated separately from its habitat and that if humans were in control of the habitat, this meant that destruction of the game's habitat also threatened human habitat. As he said:

Just what and whom do we love? Certainly not the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter downriver. Certainly not the waters, whichwe assume have no function except to turn turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. Certainly not the plants, of which we exterminate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of whichwe have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species.16

By 1987, one hundred years after Leopold's birth, this philosophy had been embraced by a wide audience, as A Sand County Almanac has soldover a million copies through five editions and forty printings.17As one scholar noted:

In fact, few works of American literature of any kind have had the practical and programmatic impact of Sand County. It has become the essential scripture of the so-called environmental movement, and of so-called environmental education. It has been primarily responsible for the development of the professional subfield in philosophy, "environmental ethics....It has been adopted as a text in countless university and college courses, and parts of it have been anthologized in still other textbooks and readers.18

"Philip Shabecoff, A Fierce Green Fire: The American EnvironmentalMovement (New York, Hill and Wang,1993).

17Peter A. Fritzell, Aldo Leopold. In: John Elder, ed., NatureWriting, (New York: Scribners, 1996), 525-547.

18Fritzell, Aldo Leopold, 526.

75 9 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Book Reviews Upon Publication

There is little doubt that A Sand County Almanac is one of the most important environmental books ever written and that it has had tremendous impact on the field. The purpose of this paper is to review the degree of significance the role of the press had, specifically through initial book reviews, in recognizing the importance of this work and its potential for the development of modern environmental philosophy. A chronological analysis of book reviews will examine (1) the role that initial book reviews played in the immediate years following the book's publication, (2) if later book reviews recognized the book's growing influence in the 1960s and 1970s with initial growth of the environmental movement, and (3) if reviews recognized the book's potential importance in the development of the later concepts of environmental ethics, biodiversity, and deep ecology in the 1990s.

A Sand County Almanac is organized into three parts: Part I, titled uA

Sand County Almanac," is a compilation of chronological essays describing a year on Leopold's Wisconsin farm; Part 2, "Sketches Here and There," contains essays on nature based on his work and travel to a variety of sites including

Illinois, Iowa, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Chihuahua and Sonora,

Mexica, and Manitoba, Canada. Part 3, "The Upshot," contains the following four essays: Conservation Esthetic, Wildlife in American Culture, Wilderness, and The

Land Ethic.

76 10 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

In an October 1, 1949 one-paragraph review in Kirkus Reviews the essays

are called "slight and charming enough" but the reviewer notes that they "would

have a very limited appeal to those who enjoy random bits of nature."19 The

reviewer also reports that Leopold "pulls no punches" with his criticism on the

"degeneration of sports" or his opinion "that most conservation is local alleviation"

or that "land health is better than land doctoring. "20 But ironically, the reviewer

concludes that the "flavor of his writing" along with the sketches ultimately "do not

give one a sense of actually challenging the reader."21

The exact opposite response is given by Alan Devoe in a review in the

October 28, 1949 issue of The Commonweal.22 Devoe noted that Leopoldwas

"an exceptionally sensitive and subtle appreciator and communicator of earth-

values."23 The term "earth-values"may have coined by Devoe, and it certainly

reflects the values that have become synonymous with environmentalism. Devoe

describes the prose as "at once delicate and strong" and "it abounds in terse

epigrammatic observations."24 He then cites several of these epigrams, starting with one from the essay The Land Ethic that has becomeone of the touchstones

of environmental philosophy"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the

integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It iswrong when it tends otherwise."25

19Virgnia Kirkus' Bookshop Service 17,no. 567, (October 1,1949). 2°/bid. 21Ibid. 22Alan Devoe, review of A Sand County Almanac by AldoLeopold. Commonweal 51 no. 77, (October 28, 1949). 23/bid. 24/bid. 25/bid. 77 11 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

This simple citation contains some of the base concepts that would be

developed over the next 50 yearsthe science of ecology and that all natural

things are a community, are connected, that would lead to development of the

field of biodiversity; that man's presence always changes nature, leading to the

development of the wilderness ethic and deep ecology; and it contains the

ingredientsintegrity, stability and beautythat are part of every environmental

ethical theory.

A review by J. W. H. in the November 27, 1949 issue of the San Francisco

Chronicle Christmas Book Section calls the book "something quite different" from

nature books that are usually about "little birds, wild flowers and flowery prose."26

The reviewer notes that the book is "obviously a testament of the beliefs of a

lifetime rather than a simple book about birds, wood cutting and flowers."27

The most important part of the book is the Part 3, "The Upshot," according to the reviewer, where Leopold writes "his eloquent plea for a sense of ethics as well as esthetics. This last is aptly stated in the phrase 'ecological conscience. "'27

Leopold's idea of wilderness is discussed, as the reviewer claims that "in this matter of wildlife and wilderness, the middle road is not a compromise but

26Review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, San Francisco Chronicle. (November 27, 1949) 28.

27/bid.

78 12 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

another road entirely. Either we must stop tampering with what little wilderness is

left, or turn it all into semi-domesticated parks with gravel walks, ashcans and

public toilets. "28 The reviewer concludes that many readers will enjoy the first two

parts of the book, but skip the "knotty philosophical problem" of Part 3.29 And this

will be their loss, as "these ideas were a man's life, and because of themwe can

place this book on the shelf that holds the writings of Thoreau and John Muir."3°

So this reviewer, J.W.H., is the first to place Leopold on thesame level as

Thoreau and Muir and initially recognize the potential importance of the

philosophical issues that Leopold raises. However, the tone of the reviewseems

to portray A Sand County Almanac as the lone musings of oneman, which it is, without recognizing that the questions raised should be takenmore seriously

than as just the "last testament" of a man who spent his life working and teaching

about conservation.

Joseph Wood Krutch, a very noted author and nature writer, wrotea review titled "Wild Geeseor Television" in the December 24, 1949 issue of The

Nation, a leading periodical.31 Krutch gives a brief introduction of Leopold's career and notes that "the little essays which compose this volume were originally published in such obscure places the Journal of Forestry and

28Ibid.

29Ibid.

31Joseph Wood Krutch, review of A Sand CountyAlmanac, by Aldo Leopold. The Nation 169, no 628 (December 24, 1949).

79 13 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Wisconsin Agriculturalist and Farmer."32 He then notes that Leopold has "an original sensibility and a special humorous awareness of the paradoxes of conservation" and quotes the first three paragraphs of the Foreward, which end with the sentence: "We of the minority see a law of diminishing returns in progress; our opponents do not."33

Krutch explains to according to Leopold, this means the exchange of one thing for another, with conservation attempting to minimize the damages.

Leopold celebrates the "therapeutic value" of wilderness and solitude, bemoans that recreational activity has become self-defeating in a mechanized society, and that contemplation is the only activity that does not destroy the outdoors.

Krutch's last paragraph hints at some of the philosophical concerns addressed in the book. "No one could be less fanatical, more moderate, or more reasonable than Mr. Leopold," yet it is obvious that Leopold "had an uncomfortable feeling that he could never see very far ahead, and the discouraging suspicion that he was doing no more than fight a rear-guard action."34 Thus Krutch tries to capture Leopold's concerns that the conservation movement was doing too little, too late to stop the destruction of natural resources, yet Krutch fails to examine the very articulate and detailed concepts and theories that Leopold writes about in Part 3, especially in the essay The

Land Ethic.

32Ibid.

34Ibid.

14 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

In a review published on Christmas Day in the 1949 Chicago Tribune

Magazine of Books, the review's headline states "Critic Wishes He'd Written This

Volume."35 Reviewer Victor P. Hass states in the first paragraphthat if he could

have written any book published in 1949, A Sand County Almanac would be his

choice. Hass wrote that the book "is one of the most beautiful, heart-warming and

important nature book to appear in years," and compares it to the contemporary

work of The Twelve Seasons by Joseph Wood !Crutch and Adventures witha

Texas Naturalist by Roy Bedicheck.38

Not quite on the level of Thoreau and Muir, but theseare nationally

recognized nature writers. Hass noted that Leopold thought watchinggeese was

more impOrtant than watching television and that he was proud to be part of a

vanishing breed who felt that "'nothing could be more salutary at this stage thena

little healthy contempt for a plethora of material blessing.'"37

Hass then describes the structure of the book and praises Leopold's

writing and prose style. In his final paragraph, Hass notes that it contains "a

lifetime of powerful thinking about conservation" and that Leopold has "poured

out the essence of a fine mind."38 In conclusion, Hass writes that the education of

future conservationists will not be complete until they have studied the

philosophical issues raised by Leopold.

Victor P. Hass, review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Chicago Tribune, (December 25, 1949) 3.

36See Bibliography. 37/bid. 38lbid 81

15 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

One may suspect that Hass is a conservationist, as he claims to wish he had written the book and is on intimate terms with the works of !Crutch and

Bedicheck. He obviously admires a great deal the writing style and issues discussed by Leopold, which center around conservation. But the conclusion seems to be ambivalent, as it seems to state that even though this is a very good nature book, the philosophical and ethical issues it raises are best left to study by future conservationists, and that the public may have little interest in these issues, a sentiment reflected by the review by J.P.W. in the Chicago Tribune.

In a February, 1950 review titled "The Land: With Realism and Poetry" in

The Christian Science Monitor, Elizabeth Yates called Leopold's essential purpose that of "persuading him [the reader] towards a realization of the delights abounding in the world of nature and convincing him of the need for wisdom and practicality in the preservation of that world."39 Yates notes that public awareness of "a growing water shortage" [in 1950] may influence more people to read the book. Yates describes the books layou, and calls the writing "at all times unself- conscious, unstudied and movingly beautiful." 4° She particularly notes the essay,

On A Monument to the Pigeon, with its discussion about extinction, and the essay, Thinking Like a Mountain, "will give not only the conservationist but the farmer and the sentimental lover of nature much to ponder deeply."4°

39Elizabeth Yates, review of A Sand County Almanac byAldo Leopold. Christian Science Monitor, (February 6, 1950) 14.

40lbid.

82 16 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

"Thinking Like a Mountain" has become a favorite slogan for

environmentalists.'" In the essay, Leopold describes how he and others shoot

and kill a female wolf, because in those days, everybody thought killing wolves

was a good idea.

We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyessomething known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunter's paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf or the mountain agreed with such a view.42

Fittingly, the term "fierce green fire" has also become a favorite phrase of the

environmental movement to describe its own motivations and consciousness.43

Yates described Leopold's philosophy of conservation as that of "a

practical man and a poet," a partnership between humans and nature, "the

extension of ethics and an ecological conscience from people to land."44

The following is cited from the essay The Land Ethic:

Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect. There is no other way for land to survive the impact of mechanized man, nor for us to reap from it the aesthetic harvest it is capable, under science, of contributing to culture.`

41Flader, Thinking Like a Mountain 42Leopold, A Sand County Almanac 43Philip Shabecoff, A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental Movement (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993).

"Elizabeth Yates, review of A Sand County Almanac byAldo Leopold. Christian Science Monitor, (February 6, 1950) 14. 45/bid.

83 17 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leonold'sA Sand County Almanac

The review has highlighted some of what are the essential concepts of

Leopold's writings and philosophy, and tries to communicate these to the reader in a serious and timely manner, especially with her reference to current water shortages and how Leopold's conservation ideas address these concerns.

Another well known nature writer, Edwin Way Tea le, wrote a review titled

"Land Loving" in the March 5, 1950 issue of the New York Herald Tribune.46

Tea le describes Leopold as "a thoughtful writer with a gift for beautiful and pliant prose," the book as "quiet and enduring," and says it "is a rare addition to the library of any one who appreciates wise and beautiful writing about nature."47

These plaudits aside, Tea le then writes a laundry list of short descriptions for many of the 37 essays contained in the first two parts of the book, indeed, these make up the majority of the content of the review.

Only in the last two paragraphs does he briefly mention the essays The

Land Ethic and Wildlife in American Culture and interestingly notes that it is

Leopold who believes that we must start thinking about the land in a philosophical rather than economic sense. Tea le's voice or opinions on these subjects is noticeably absent, and he concludes with a quotation from the

Foreward. Tea le, a leading nature writer, says surprisingly little about the concepts and theories espoused by Leopold, and seems to treat the book as just another collection of essays about the beauty of nature.

"Edwin Way Tea le, review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. New York Herald Tribune Book Review (March 5, 1950) 6.

84 18 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

In a very brief review in the April, 1950 issue of the Canadian Forum,

reviewer Ellen Rogers talks about how Leopold believes that economic

evaluation should not be the bottom line for conservation, and she notes that if

"he becomes a bit lyrical at times about ducks and such, it is aneasy thing to

forgive in a sincere nature lover."45 She does note that Leopold, while working in

the U.S. Forest Service, "originated the idea of establishing permanent 'primitive'

areas of wood and water."49 There are virtually no references to land ethics or

philosophy.

Hal Borland, another noted nature writer, wrote a review titled "The Land

is Good" for the New York Times in July, 1950.5° His lead paragraph bears

repeating:

"This book looks as harmless as a toy glass pistol filled with colored candy. It turns out to be a .45 automatic fully loaded."51

Borland calls Leopold's "poetic approach to the out-of-doors" the candy in thetoy

gun and calls his philosophy of conservation "the powder and the lead, the real

thing."52 Borland writes that Part 1 is the best ofoutdoor prose writing. Part 2 has the same "singing quality" as Part 1, but is more than just nature writingas it

Ellen Rogers, review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. CanadianForum, (April, 1950).

49/bid. °Hal Borland, review of A Sand County Almanac byAldo Leopold. New York Times (July 16, 1950) 10.

51 Ibid.

52/bid.

85 19 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

"questions piecemeal conservation policies that merely compromise with or slow down forces of destruction" and this prepares the reader for the heavier reading in Part 3.53 Borland notes that "it is heavy going, but chiefly because Leopold deals with big questions and opposes popular solutions."54 The range of topics include biotic communities, ecological balance, wilderness cycles and economic health, humility in mankind, and effects of civilization.

Borland concludes that this is "a trenchant book, full of beauty and vigor and bite, a fit testament from and monument to the man."55 While acknowledging that Leopold may not have all the answers to conservation concerns, he says

Leopold's chief purpose was to eloquently explain what was wrong with systems and philosophies that were currently in use.

Borland is first reviewer that seems to realize the tremendous importance of Leopold's book and he emphasized the fact in his somewhat melodramatic lead, basically saying that here is a loaded gun aimed our current conservation efforts, and we need to pay attention.

The March, 1950 issue of The United States Quarterly Book List contains a review of the book, which it noted to "form a sort of capstone to the life work of a great American forester, ecologist andconservationist."56 The reviewer briefly outlines Leopold's philosophy that everything in nature is part of community and

°Ibid.

56United States Quarterly Book list 6 no. 7 (March 1950).

, $6 20 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

that disturbing any part of the community effects all other parts, and mankindis

generally doing a lousy job of safeguarding its naturalresources. The layout of

the book and is contents is briefly given, and theessay Wilderness noted

because of its idea of setting aside protectedareas of primitive wilderness. While

this review is fairly accurate and praiseworthy, it does not reallyimpart the sense

of concern and immediacy and importance that Borlandmanages to portray in

his review.

Discussion and Conclusion

This is a comprehensive compilation of the major reviewswritten within a

year of the publication of A Sand County Almanac. A brief synopsis of themajor

publications and reviewers show that Leopold's work receiveda very good

reception, with Kirkus Reviews being the lone exception:

The Commonweal Alan Devoe San Francisco ChronicleJ. P. W. The Chicago TribuneVictor P. Hass The NationJoseph Wood Krutch Christian Science Monitor Elizabeth Yates New York Herald TribuneEdwin Way Teale New York TimesHal Borland Krutch, Teale and Borland were three of the biggestnames in nature writing in the 1940s and '50s. Five of the nation's largestnewspapers ran reviews, two in their Christmas book review sections. Krutch and Tealeboth wrote good reviews, but did so in the genre of "nature books" and concentratedon the first two parts of the book, which fit well into that genre. But both failto explore or extrapolate

87 21 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

the theories and philosophies expressed in Part 3, especially Tea le, who seems

to try to distance himself from them rather than discuss them. These must be

considered the two major reviews because of the reviewers' prominence and the

length of the reviews (7-9 paragraphs) and the fact that the Herald Tribune ran

one of Charles W. Schwartz's illustrations from the book with its review.

Hass claimed that he wished he wrote the book, but similar to J. P. W.,

both seemed to admire the beauty of Leopold's writing and thinking without really

extrapolating or exploring the deeper concepts and theories that Leopold was

proposing and discussing.

Yates' review was almost the same length, and while not developing a detailed discussion about Part 3, does seem to have a sharper eye for the

importance of issues raised in essays like Thinking Like A Mountain and in Part 3 of the book. Similarly, Devoe, in a much shorter review, manages to catch some of the important concepts through the epigrams he chooses to cite.

But is up to Borland to stand up and say "Hey look at this, this is something important." He alone tries to make the reader understand that Leopold is raising important ethical and philosophical questions, and answers, to concerns and problems that involve a whole myriad of issues, such as hunting and fishing, forestry, outdoor recreation, wildlife and game management, man's relationship to not just the farmland and animals but to the earth as whole, including wilderness, and how all of these subjects are part of our social and cultural constructions, including values and ethics.

88 22 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac Looking Back

It is interesting, and a comment on the role of book reviewing, that no

reviews of A Sand County Almanac were published between 1950 and 1967as

researched in the Book Review Digest. It was during these years, especially in

the '60s, that the book was becoming recognized, at first as something likea cult

classic among the youth "back-to-nature" movement, then as a "must read"

among environmentalists, until it reached it status as a classic reference among

educators and philosophers dealing with a wide range of biological, ethical and

ecological related disciplines.

Leopold's son, Luna, who helped with the final draft of A Sand County

Almanac, collected more essays from his father's journals and thesewere

published in 1953 as a book titled Round River: From the Journals of Aldo

Leopold.57 The two bookswere combined in 1966 edition as A Sand County

Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River.58 In the preface to this

book, Luna and his sister, Carolyn Clugston Leopold, write that:

this generation of Aldo Leopold's grandchildren is rebelling on college campuses, demonstrating and working for social causes, and fighting on foreign soil. This same youth is maturing at that moment of time which is pivotal in the struggle to preserve 'things wild and free' that Aldo Leopold

understood so wisely and expressed so eloquently...What better way to fight the destruction of nature that to place in the hands of theyoung this powerful plea for a land ethic?59

57Aldo and Luna Leopold, Round River. From the Journalsof Aldo Leopold (Oxford University Press, 1953).

58Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac: With Essayson Conservation from Round River.30 (Oxford University Press, 1966).

58 Ibid. 89 23 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

In a review in the September 1967 issue of Quarterly Review of Biology,

Raymond F. Dasmann noted that A Sand County Almanac "has been a major

reference for all who are interested in the philosophy of conservation" since its

publication in 1949.60 And in true 1960's style, Dasmann addresses the so-called

generation gap:

If... youfail to understand why people become emotional about redwoods and whooping cranes...read at least Part 4 in this new edition...in which the now familiar terms 'ecological conscience,' land ethic' and 'conservation esthetic' are first defined and explored, and in which the significance of wilderness is examined. This is the core of the book.61

So 17 years after its publication, A Sand County Almanac had reached the status

of "hip." As the environmental movement grew, and the field of ecology grew into

the multi-faceted exploration of the environment and various areas of study and

specialization developed, the wisdom and foresight of Aldo Leopold became

even more celebrated, even canonized.

As the fields and disciplines related to environmentalism grew and

developed from the 1960s into the new millennium, Leopold has garnered even

more recognition and respect as a man who was ahead of his time.

Leopold wrote forty years ago that the land ethic is a product of social evolution developing through the interplay of emotion and intellect. It will never be complete, he affirmed, for "nothing so important as an ethic is ever 'written.' Only the most superficial student of history supposes that Moses 'wrote' the Decalogue; it evolved in the minds of a thinking community, and Moses wrote a tentative summary of it for a 'seminar.'62 wRichard F. Dasmann, review of A Sand Country Almanac: With Essays on Conservation from Round River, by Aldo Leopold. Quarterly Review of Biology 42, no. 3 (September, 1967) 417.

61Ibid.

62Victor B. Scheffer, The Shaping of Environmentalism in America. (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991) 176.

9 0 24 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Numerous books and articles have been written about the life of Leopold,

the effects of A Sand Country Almanac on environmental philosophy, ethics and

education, and more of his essays have been compiled and published. Many of

these are centered around two dates1987, the 100th anniversary of his birth,

and 1999, the 50th anniversary of the publishing of A Sand Country Almanac.°

On August 11, 1988, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution to give special

recognition to the birth and achievements of Aldo Leopold.64

Historian Donald Fleming described Leopold as the uMoses of the New

Conservation impulse of the 1960s and 70s, who handed down the Tablets of

the Law but did not live to enter the promised land."65Leopold may not have lived to enter the promised land, but he laid the foundations for hope that mankind

may still be able to save Eden.

63See Bibliography for a selection of these works.

'United States. Joint Resolution To Give Special Recognition to the Birth and Achievements of Aldo Leopold. GPO Call No. AE 2.110:100-389. Aug. 11, 1988 (S.J. Res. 40). 102 Stat. 963, Public Law 100-389

'Donald Fleming, Roots of the New Conservation Movement. Perspectives inAmerican History, 6 (1972) 18. In: Shabecoff, A Fierce Green Fire, 90.

25 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

REFERENCES

Journal Reviews (chronological)

Krutch, Joseph Wood. Review of A Sand Country Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Nation 169 no. 628 (December 24, 1949), 550 words.

Kirkus 17:567 Oct. 1, 1949 170 words.

Devoe, Alan. Review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopld. Commonweal 51 no. 77 (October 28, 1949), 270 words.

Library Journal 74:1679 Nov. 1, 1949, 60 words.

Wisconsin Library Bulletin p. 5, Nov. 1949.

US Quarterly Booklist 6:7 March 1950, 280 words.

Rogers, Ellen. Review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Canadian Forum 30 no. 23 (April 1950),150 words.

Dasmann, Raymond F. Review of A Sand County Almanac With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River by Aldo Leopold. Quarterly Review of Biology 42 no. 3 (September 1967), 417.

Newspaper Reviews (chronological)

San Francisco Chronicle p. 28 Nov. 27, 1949 490 words.

Hass, Victor P. Chicago Sunday Tribune p.3 Dec. 25, 1949, 450 words.

Yates, Elizabeth. Review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. Christian Science Monitor. (February 6, 1950) 14.

Teale, Edwin Way. Review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. New York Herald Tribune Book Review (March 5, 1950),6.

Borland, Hal. Review of A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold. New York Times

(July 16, 1950),10.

92 26 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

REFERENCES (cont.)

Books (Alphabetical by Author)

Cohen, Ralph, ed. New Directions in Literary History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.

Culler, Jonathan Culler. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1982.

Deval, Bill and George Sessions. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith, Publisher. 1985..

Eagleton, Thomas. Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory. London: Verso, 1998, First edition, NLM 1976).

Flader, Susan L. Thinking Like a Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude Toward Deer, Wolves and Forests. University of Missouri Press, 1974.

Fleming, Donald. Roots of the New Conservation Movement. Perspectives in American History 6, (1972) 18. In: Shabecoff, Philip. A Fierce Green Fire- The American Environmental Movement. New York, Hill and Wang, 1993.

Fritzell, Peter A. Aldo Leopold. In: Elder, John. ed. Nature Writing. New York: Scribners. 1996.

Hirsch, David H. The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism after Auschwitz. Hanover: Brown University Press, 1991.

Meine, Curt. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. University of Wisconsin Press, 1988.

Meine, Curt and Richard Knight. eds. The Essential Aldo Leopold: Quotations and Commentaries. University of Wisconsin Press, 1999.

Oppenheimer, Evelyn. Oral Book Reviewing to Stimulate Reading: A Practical Guide in Technique for Lecture and Broadcast. Meutchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1980.

Scheffer, Victor B. The Shaping of Environmentalism in America. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1991.

Shabecoff, Philip. A Fierce Green Fire- The American Environmental Movement. New York, Hill and Wang, 1993.

27 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Miscellaneous

United States. Joint Resolution To Give Special Recognition to the Birth and Achievements of Aldo Leopold. GPO Call No. AE 2.110:100-389. Aug. 11, 1988 (S.J. Res. 40). 102 Stat. 963, Public Law 100-389

ALDO LEOPOLD (Selected)

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Leopold, Aldo and Luna. Round River. From the Journals of Aldo Leopold. Oxford University Press, 1953.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. With Other Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Leopold, Aldo. Good Oak. Wisconsin Magazine of History. 71:1 (1987 ), 46-54.

Leopold, Aldo. Aldo Leopold's Wilderness: Selected Early Writings by the Author of A Sand Country Almanac. Brown, David E. and Neil B. Carmony, eds. Harrisonburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1990.

Leopold, Aldo. The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays. Flader, Susan, and Callicott, J. Baird. eds. University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.

Leopold, Aldo. For the Health of the Land, Previously Unpublished Essays and Other Writings. Callicott, J. Baird and Freyfogle, Eric T. eds. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999.

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Bedichek, Roy. Adventures with a Texas Naturalist. Garden City, New York, Doubleday, 1947.

Burgess, Robert L. A Leopold Feast. Ecology, 70, 2 (April, 1989), 530-531.

Callicott, J. Baird. ed. Companion to A Sand County AlmanacInterpretive and Critical Essays. University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

Flores, Dan. The River of the Mother of God and Other Essays. New Mexico History Review, 67 (October 1992), 430-431.

Hedgpeth, Joel W. Commentary: The Life and Works of Aldo Leopold, Naturalist. Quarterly Review of Biology. 64, 2 (June, 1989). 169-173.

94 28 Book Reviewers' Recognition of Environmental Ethics In Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac

Krutch, Joseph Wood. The Twelve Seasons; A Perpetual Calendar for the Country. Illustrated by Armin Landeck. New York, W. Sloane Associates, 1949.

McCabe, Robert A. Aldo Leopold: The Professor. Madison, Wisconsin. Rusty Rock Press, 1987.

Miller, Char. Ah, Wilderness. Reviews in American History, 17, 3 (Sept., 1989). 433- 447.

Milne, Lorus J., Milne, Margery J. A Sand Country Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Quarterly Review of Biology, 26, 1 (Mar., 1951), 48-49.

Nash, Roderick Frazier. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison, University of Wisconsin Press. 1998.

Nicholoson, Max. The New Environmental Age. Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Ross, John; Ross, Beth. Prairie TimeThe Leopold Reserve Revisited. University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

Tanner, Thomas. ed. Aldo Leopold: The Man and his Legacy. Ankeny, Iowa: Soil Conservation Society of America. 1987.

Wild, Peter. Aldo Leopolds' Wilderness: Selected Early Writings by the author of A Sand County Almanac. Journal of Arizona History, 33 (Summer 1992), 228-230.

29 SCIENCE COMMUNICATION INTEREST GROUP

Environmental Threats, Information Sources and Optimistic Bias: Environmental Risk in Appalachia

Daniel Rife Professor and Associate Director Graduate Studies and Research (740-593-2597) [email protected]

and

Jan Knight Doctoral Candidate Scripps Howard Teaching Fellow

E.W. Scripps School of Journalism Ohio University Athens, OH 45701

Paper submitted to the Science Interest Group of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for its annual conference, Miami, August 2002. Environmental Threats, Information Sources and Optimistic Bias: Environmental Risk in Appalachia

A 1999 newspaper article identified Appalachian counties in Ohio that had the

"deadly distinction" of the highest death rates in the state. Health officials cited poverty, unhealthy lifestyles, and lack of health care as contributing factors, while state and federal data consistently show dangerously high levels of air, land and water pollution and toxicity. One official characterized residents' attitudes: "There is a sort of fatalism in

Appalachian people. They say, 'We're all going to die anyway. Something's going to get you, so why bother ?"''

This telephone survey study examined perceived environmental risk in Appalachian

Ohio, exploring the relationship of perceived risk to "optimistic bias" or "unrealistic optimism," 2 and to evaluations of sources of environmental information.

Literature Review

Risk:Slovic's review of studies of risk perception showed that most Americans generally see themselves as more at risk today than in the past, and less at risk than they'll be in the future. As individuals, they tolerate higher levels of risk from voluntaryactivities

(choosing to smoke) than they tolerate from involuntary hazards (smokestack emissions from a local power plant); and the riskier a perceived hazard is, the morethey endorse strict regulations to reduce it.3

This "tolerability" of a risk is sometimes an artifact that, in reality,is evidence of an

"optimistic bias" or "unrealistic optimism." Studies examining risk andoptimistic bias have focused on AIDS/HIV, smoking, being involved in a motorcycle or autoaccident, and adequacy of health care, to name a few.4

97 Weinstein wrote that people "expect others to be victims of misfortune, not themselves. Such ideas imply not merely a hopeful outlook on life, but an error in judgment that can be labeled unrealistic optimism." Weinstein argued that unrealistic optimism is an attempt to avoid anxiety linked to a threat to wellbeing.' Chapin noted that people may psychologically distance themselves from a risk by making "downward comparisons" of themselves to "less fortunate" people (to whom are attributed elevated degrees of risk) to maintain selfesteem. Similarly, individuals also "overestimate" their own skills at avoiding risk (e.g., driving ability), and denigrate the skills of others atrisk. 6

Comparison to Others: Whatever the functionanxiety reduction, maintenance of self-esteem, etc.one thing is clear: Central to one's calculation of self-risk is a comparison to someone else.Studies often involve different levels of risk judgment (e.g., societal-level risk versus individual risk), or different levels of "psychological distance," using referents of varying familiarity or similarity. Respondents may be asked to compare themselves to what is "average" (e.g., "What is the average person's chance of being a crime victim?" and "What is your chance?"), or to assess the national prevalence of a problem and compare their own likelihood of it (e.g., "How much of a problem is

AIDS/HIV for the United States? What do you think is your chance of contracting it?").

Other studies ask respondents to compare themselves to "most people" or asimilar generalized other (e.g., "other drivers").

These differences in referent can be pivotal. Chapin's study of urban minority youth, for example, used three referents: a best friend, other students in the same state, and other students across America. As psychological distance increased, sodid subjects' optimistic bias with regard to HIV/AIDS risk.'

2 58 The question of comparison points of reference is particularly germane to this study, which involves specific risk comparison to people "where you live" in Appalachia.

Individual Differences:People's perception of their risk may be viewed as a social and cultural construct; individual differences such as gender, age, and education could affect risk perception (e.g., "That doesn't happen to educated people," or "I've learned to avoid that....").8

However, optimistic bias studies that examined gender have produced mixed results. Some found no gender difference.9 Others have found, for example, that adult

io men are more optimistic than adult women about cancerrisk from smoking. Other studies show unrealistic optimism about particular risks increases with age, presumably because lack of experience with a risk over time is equated with lack of risk of ever experiencing it."Quadrel, Fischoff and Davis, for example, showed adults more optimistic than their children about a variety of risks, including environmental risk; parents and children both tended to view the parent as being less at risk: "Infact, both the parents and the children believed that the adults were more invulnerablethan the teenagers were."12

However, Salwen and Dupagne, studying the "Y2K" phenomenon,found age an important predictor, but "Younger respondents believed that Y2Kwill cause more problems for other people than themselves" (emphasisadded).13

Based on other studies' findings that firsthand and evensecondhand experiences of bad events can lead to greater sense of vulnerability, Rutter,Quine, and Albery used

"experience" in a study of motorcyclists' perception of risk butfound that optimism

actually increased with experience of negative events. Theauthors speculated that the finding might be attributable to the respondents' survival despite prior risky behavior, which indicated that they may view risk more positively (e.g., "taking chances," or "living on the edge") than others who most often behave in less riskyfashion." On the other hand, those who've experienced negative events may simply be weighing "quasi- statistical" probabilities, in the belief that "lightning never strikes twice in the same place."

The Nature of the Risk: Research also shows that the type of "risk event" affects one's view of his or her risk, though that effect may itself be related to individual differences, as noted above. Slovic suggests that a deadly accident may produce little social disturbance if it occurs as part of a familiar and well understood system, such as a train wreck, while a small accident in an unfamiliar system, such as a nuclear reactor meltdown, may cause a great deal of social disturbance if it is perceived as a sign of things to come.15

Weinstein found that people who thought a problem was particularly serious were less likely to be optimistic about their own susceptibility, as were people with more experience with a problem, suggesting that event type has a powerfuleffect." Harris suggested that unrealistic optimism, or biased risk assessment, varies from event to event because of perceived controllability, low perceived probability, the extent to which the event is associated with a stereotype of the typical victim, and the extent towhich people believe that previous lack of exposure to it implies inununity.17

The Role of Media: Researchers have also examined exposure to risk messages, or beliefs about the quality of media coverageof a risk, as they might be related to optimistic bias. Tyler and Cook, for example, found that exposure in an experimental setting to mass media communications on crime did result in increased estimationof 1 0 0 4 societal risk but not judgments of personal risk.18 In his study of at-risk urban minority youths, Chapin found that content-specific knowledge, media use, and attitudes toward the media were not significant predictors of optimistic bias.° In a study of views of health care, Culbertson and Stempel found that perceived favorability of media coverage did not play a significant role in assessment of one's own health care but did affect assessment of health care at the societal level." Salwen and Dupagne found that overall amount of television viewing (but not television news viewing) was related to optimistic bias about

Y2K. "Respondents who watched more television believed that Y2K problems are more likely to happen to other people than to themselves." Newspaper coverage was negatively related, and evaluation of quality of coverage was unrelated.21

Background of Current Study

Appalachia's 200,000 square miles encompass parts of 13 states, including 29 counties in Southeast Ohio. In the 1960s, Appalachia was called a "region apart, geographically and statistically," from the rest of the country because of its rugged terrain, low incomes, lack of urbanization, and deficits in education and livingstandards.22

Although conditions have improved, much of Central Appalachia, including Southeast

Ohio, still suffers the "realities of deprivation" identified in 1964 and remains "among the worstoff places in the nation. "23

Ohio is the seventh mostpopulated state.24 Its electric power plants release more emissions to land, air, and water than any other state's,25 and it ranks fourth fortotal toxic industrial releases,26 eleventh for number of hazardous waste sites, and twelfth for amount of coal produced." Meanwhile, it ranks thirtyninth in the country forspending on environmental regulation" and fortyfifth for state investment in publichealth."

5 101 This study focuses on six Appalachian Ohio counties in the Ohio River valley

Belmont, Gallia, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, and Washington. The counties possess a mix

of environmental, health, and economic pressures.3° Mining and manufacturing provide

many jobs, including work in such "dirty" industries as chemical and petrochemical

refining. Leading employers are WHX/Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel; Dow Chemical; Union

Carbide; Intermet Ironton Iron; Ormet Corp.; BP Amoco Corp.; DuPont; Royal Dutch

Shell/Shell Chemical; Elkern Metals; and Pioneer Pipe.31

Collectively, the counties account for 2.3% of Ohio's population, 7% of its land

area, 8% of its hazardous waste sites, 8% of its toxic chemical wastes, 16% of its toxic

chemical releases, 23% of its air emissions, and 24% of its total power plant emissions.32

Further, the counties are poor.33 In each, the poverty rate is higher than the state

average, the per capita income is below the state and national averages, and the unemployment rates are higher than state and national rates. Four of the six are among

Ohio counties with the highest rates for not having health insurance. Only one percent of the state's physicians practice in the six-county region.

Research Questions

Based on the research reviewed briefly above, three research questions were posed

for this initial inquiry into environmental risk among Appalachian residents.

RQ1: What is the level of environmental risk perception among Appalachian residents?

RQ2: Is there unrealistic optimism about environmental health threats when risk comparisons involve others in the same place?

RQ3: How does media use and information source evaluation relate to environmental risk perception? 102

6 Method

Trained student interviewers using computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing equipment phoned 2,626 randomly selected numbers purchased from a commercial firm and proportional to the six counties. Over 1,600 of the numbers were non-working, were answered by answering machines, or were not answered at all. Of the 946 calls that yielded a connection, 405 (45%) were completed (with 51 partial completions, the rate is

48%). A conservative estimate of the sampling error associated with a probabilitysample of 405 is +1- 4.8% at the 95% confidence level.

Interviews "with the next adult over 18 who will celebrate a birthday" were conducted in a single week (Sunday through Thursday) from 6:30 p.m.until 9:30, and lasted approximately 15 minutes each. Interviewees were asked aseries of questions about environmental conditions in general, about a number ofenvironmental problems specifically, and about the adequacy of information provided bygovernment(s), businesses or companies, and local newsmedia. Because of our focus on these Appalachian counties, questions about risk to self and other were framed within adecidedly local context

("where you live"). The general questions included:

Generally speaking, do you think the condition of theenvironment where you live has gotten better, stayedabout the same, or gotten worse?

Generally speaking, how serious are environmental threats tothe quality of life where you live?

How serious do you think environmental threats are tothe health of most people where you live?

How about you personally? How serious do youthink environmental threats are to you personally?

7 103 How worried are you personally that you will develop health problems related to environmental threats?

Next, respondents were asked whether 14 separate environmental problems

ranging from nuclear waste to water qualitywere a serious problem "in the area where you live." Table 1 presents the 14 hazards or problems. Demographic and media use data

were also collected, along with data on respondent evaluation of the performance of government, businesses and companies, and local news media, in delivering environment-

related information.

Results

The final sample percentages from each county closely matched the proportional

county distribution in the sampling frame: Belmont (25% obtained, 26% in listing), Gallia

(11% obtained vs. 12%), Lawrence (21% vs. 21%), Meigs (9% vs. 12%), Monroe (3%

vs. 6%) and Washington (31% vs. 23%). As often happens, the sample overrepresented

females (just over 60% as compared to Census data of 51%) in five counties, though

female sample representation was identical to Census figures for the largest county

(Washington). The sample was overwhelmingly white: 97% of respondents were white, a

figure higher than Ohio's overall 86%, but consistent with the five counties' Census racial

distributions (all ranged from 95% to 99% white).

Respondent ages ranged from 18 to 88 (mean=49). Forty percent were

Democrats, 32% were Republican, and 28% were Independent or other party.Sixteen

percent had not completed high school, while 51% were high schoolgraduates, and 13%

claimed college diplomas, a figure lower than Ohio's 17% but consistent with the six-

county Census average of 12.6%. Nearly two-thirds (63%) weremarried and 36% had

104 8 children under 18 living at home. Forty-four percent reported church attendance within the previous week; 61% claimed Protestant faith. Four of ten (41%) reported household income under $25,000 annually (including 14% under $10,000), 25% reported $25,000-

$40,000, 19% reported $40,000-$60,000, and 15% reported more than $60,000.

RQ1: What is the level of environmental risk perception among Appalachian residents?

Table 1 provides data on respondent evaluations of general and specific environmental conditions where they live. One-fourth believed that environmental conditions had deteriorated during the past few years. Given the region's environmental

"history," the 50% reporting that conditions had "stayed about the same" represents faint praise; in fact, only one in five reported that conditions had improved. Seven out of ten viewed environmental conditions as "somewhat" or "very" serious threats to the "quality of life" (71%) and the "health of most people" (73%) where they live. Yet only 64% viewed environmental conditions as threats to their own health, an indication of

"optimistic bias" or "unrealistic optimism." Just over half (51%) were worried that they would develop health problems related to those threats.

RQ2: Is there unrealistic optimism about environmental health threats when risk comparisons involve others in the same place?

While these proportional comparisons (73% to 64%) illustrate perceivedself-other differences in risk from environmental conditions, it is also possible to test fordifferences in means between responses to the two survey questions (though the items' 1-4scoring is not in any strict sense an interval measure). A paired t-testbetween means for "the health of most people" (mean=3.0) and "your health personally" (mean=2.88)yields a t value of

3.28 (396 d.f) that is statistically significant(p=.001).34

9 105 In regard to one specific health risk not tied directly to the environment, when respondents were asked to assess the risk of heart disease for others where they live and for themselves, they again provided an even more generous estimate of others' risk and an even more conservative one for themselves: 79%viewed others as somewhat or very likely to develop heart disease (mean=3.34), while only 62% (mean=2.81) saw themselves at similar risk (t =9.11, 345 d.f., p<.001). As noted earlier, a numberof functional explanations (anxiety reduction, self-esteem maintenance, etc.) have been advanced for such optimism, as have a number of mechanisms, such as overestimation of one's risk- avoidance skills or healthful behaviors.Indeed, while a majority (61%) of our respondents said "people where you live" are "somewhat" or "very likely" to have an annual medical checkup (mean=2.76), 86% (mean=3.49) said they themselves would have an annual examination (t=-12.59, 389, p<.001).

RQ1, RQ2, and the Total Environmental Problems Score (TEPS)

To elaborate RQ1 about perception of level of environmental risk, respondents were also asked to assess how serious specificenvironmental threats are "in the area where you live," using a four-point scale (not serious at all, not veryserious, somewhat serious or very serious). The problems, adapted from a 1995 statewidesurvey,35 included extinction or disappearance of native plants and animals, nuclear wastedisposal, outdoor air pollution, and industrial dumping. Table 1 reports the percentagesof respondents identifying problems as serious (combining "somewhat" and "very") where theylive.

Problems are presented in descending order of "seriousness."

The primacy of the first three problems (declining water quality,industrial

dumping, and working with dangerous materials) comes as nosurprise to those familiar

10106 with the area. As we noted above, these Ohio River valley counties are characterized by mining, chemical and petrochemical operationsall notoriously "dirty." Acid mine runoff and spillage of industrial waste chemicals are familiar and recurring problems.

There is redundancy among some of these problems, but for the purposes of constructing an overall environmental problems "index," we retained all 14 items. Each was dichotomized and scored as a "0" if identified as "not veryserious" or "not serious at all," but scored as a "1" if identified as "somewhat" or "very serious." The summed

"Total Environmental Problems Score" (TEPS) thus ranged from 0-14, with a mean of 7.6 problems and a median of 7 problems.

Reliability analysis of the TEPS scale was satisfactory (alpha=.81). As a crude test of its validity, TEPS was used as a dependent measurein a one-way ANOVA (also in

Table 1), based on whether respondents felt environmental conditions had gottenbetter, worse, or stayed the same in recent years.The mean TEPS for respondents reporting that conditions had remained the same or gotten better was 7.1 problems,but for those reporting declining conditions, the TEPS was significantly higher (8.9;F=10.05 [2,395], p=.001).

Next, the distribution of the TEPS was examined and used to constructthree levels of perceived risks. The low risk level included 122 respondentsscoring 0-5 on the TEPS, the middle level included 122 respondents scoring around the 7.6 mean(6-8 serious

problems), while the higher risk level included 165 respondents scoringfrom 9 to 14 on

the TEPS.

When RQ2's unrealistic optimism about environmentalhealth risk ("most people"

and "your health personally") was re-examined for thesethree TEPS levels, we found a

11 107 "specification" of this relationship.First, though, note that the means on both the measures (self and other) increased monotonically with each TEPS risk level (2.58, 2.97 and 3.33 for "most people"; 2.48, 2.78 and 3.25 for "your health personally").

It is within TEPS levels, though, that the specification occurs. A pairwise t-test within the low risk group (between "most people" and "you personally") yielded a non- significant t (1.28, 118 d.f., p=.20). In the middle risk group the test yielded a significant t

(2.76, 115 d.f., p=.007), but in the high risk group, t was again non-significant (1.79, 161 d.f., p=.08). In other words, among those in this sample whose responses indicate that they are the least at risk (low TEPS), there was no significant unrealistic optimism.

Meanwhile, the TEPS middle risk group did exhibit significant optimistic bias. However, among those arguably the most at riskthe high-levelTEPS groupthe perceptions of risk to self and to others are not significantly different. Those who perceived the most environmental threats where they live do not see themselves as significantly more at risk than others who live there. Recall Chapin's finding (among at-risk urban youths) that optimistic bias increases with psychological distance;36 our high-TEPS respondents were unable to distance themselves from others living there. Recall also Weinstein's observation that people who thought a problem was particularly serious were less likely to be optimistic about their susceptibility, as were people with more experiencewith a problem.37

Table 2 examines the relationship of TEPS level to general statementsabout the environment's condition and threats posed to quality of life, to "most people,"and to the respondent. The data are presented as simple percentages by TEPSlevel, with chi-square measures of association for each bivariateanalysis. In addition, "raw" TEPS means are

12 10 8 provided for each row variable in the tables, with F-scores for one-way ANOVAs among rows. Admittedly, there is redundancy in thepresentation (indeed, the entire discussion of unrealistic bias in Table 1 is elaborated by the data), but our goal was to illustrate relationships and to gain some sense of the validity of the TEPS.

The data show that "raw" TEPS (with the F-score) and TEPS level (with the chi- square) are in each case significantly related to the general belief statements. Thosewho perceive more environmental problems where they live see the environmentworsening in recent years; are more likely to see environmental threats to thequality of life and health of "most people" where they live; and are more likely to see their own health at greater risk. The TEPS mean scores indicate that the relationships are monotonic aswell.

RQ3: How does media use and information source evaluation relate to environmental risk perception?

Table 3 explores media use data, usefulness of information sourcesabout environmental issues, and assessment of environmental knowledge,salience, and efficacy.

There is a monotonic, but not statistically significant, patternin the respondents'

daily television use, with higher TEPS level respondentsreporting 3.58 hours of television

viewing per day. There is no relationship between TEPSand days per week of viewing a

local or regional newscast, or minutes of daily newspaperreading. There also is no clear

association of these media use variables and rating of localmedia as sources of

environmental issue information. F was significant for newspaperreading and rating of

local media performance, but the pattern is curvilinear.

Indeed, when TEPS is controlled for three different sourcesof environmental

information (government, businesses and companies, andlocal media), none of the values

13 109 of chi-square is significant. Government receives slightly higher ratings (52% "somewhat"

or "very good") among the low TEPS level respondents than among the middle (38%) and high risk (39%) respondents. They in turn give poorer ratings to businesses and companies as sources (63% of middle level and 68% of high level respondents rate businesses and companies "somewhat" or "very poor").

The between-level comparisons are suggestive, if not statistically significant. What is most pronounced in the rating of information sources is the favorable ratings of "local newspaper, radio and television" compared to government and businesses and companies.

Overall, 72% of respondents rated local media "somewhat" or "very good," compared to

42% for government and only 37% for businesses and companies. The favorable local

media ratings were fairly consistent across TEPS levels (71%, 75% and 71%, respectively).

Table 3 also provides data on three measures of respondent perception of

environmental knowledge level, salience, and efficacy, adapted from Einsiedel and

Thorne.38 Respondents were asked to indicate how well each statement describes them:

10 indicates a perfect description while 1 indicates the opposite. The resulting overall

scores of 6.21 for knowledge, 3.9 for salience, and 3.21for efficacy lack context, until

TEPS level is controlled. Those perceiving more environmental threats where they live

see themselves as more knowledgeable and as moreconcerned about the environment

("important to me"). Those at medium and high TEPS levels see themselves as less

resigned to environmental problems ("not much we can do"). While the differences

among means on the first two statements are monotonic, noneof the three ANOVAs is

significant at the .05 level.

1-10 14 Table 4 revisits the examination of performance by sources of environmental information, controlling for respondent view on environmental conditions (better, worse, same) and threats. Not surprisingly, there is a significant association between view of environmental change and rating of government as a source of environmental information:

75.5% of those who believe the environment where they live has gotten worse rate government as "somewhat" or "very" poor as a source, compared to 52%of those who feel conditions have stayed the same and 43% of those who feel conditions have improved. A similar association exists with rating of businesses and companies as sources:

77% of those who believe conditions have worsened rate businesses and companies

"somewhat" or "very" poor, while smaller majorities among the "gotten better" and

"stayed the same" groups gave negative ratings. While ratings of local media lean toward the same pattern, no significant association exists.

When seriousness of environmental threats to quality of life is controlled, the same pattern emergesto a point. Those who see environmentalthreats to quality of life as more serious tend to provide significantly morenegative ratings of government, businesses and companies, as before, but also to local media. However, when the focus turns to threats to "most people's" health and "your own health," seriousness of threatis significantly associated with negative source evaluations except for local newsmedia.

Discussion and Conclusions

The goals of this study were modest: to examine risk perceptionin a distinct geographic region, a region for which there are many stereotypesand assumptions about its residents' "fatalism" in accepting and living with environmentalthreats. The study used a cross-sectional survey of only fiveAppalachian Ohio River counties that consistently are

15 111 ranked at or near the top for Ohio in terms of environmental hazards, health care inadequacy, and death rates. Its measures of opinions and beliefs about risk need validation. The question of "fatalism," of course, was not addressed.

Despite these limitations, the study has answered several research questions about the perception of environmental health risk for Appalachian Ohioans among Appalachian

Ohioans. At minimum, it has shown those perceptions are rich and "multi-dimensional"

(e.g., the 14 environmental problems that made up the TEPS) and it has asked those at potential risk to assess risk "where you live," and not to a generalized "average."

Few surveyed believe environmental conditions have improved in recent years and most view conditions as serious threats to quality of life and health of peoplewhere they live. Fewer viewed those conditions as threats to their own health, an indication of

"optimistic bias" or "unrealistic optimism," or the general tendency to overestimate likelihood of negative events befalling others relative to one's own risk. The study found that unrealistic optimism about general environmental risk is related to one'sspecific environment and how many specific risks are present: Optimistic bias variesdepending on one's TEPS.

Those in the sample the least at risk (low TEPS) did notexhibit unrealistic optimism; those in this group may realize that risk is low for one and all.The TEPS middle-risk group did exhibit unrealistic optimism. But among thehigh-level TEPS groupthose who are most at risk in terms of sheer number of identifiedhazards perceptions of risk to self and others are not significantly different.Might it be that the sheer number of perceived risks for the high TEPS group precludeserecting a defense against such a threat to well-being? Does our use of a referent"other" whose

16 112 "psychological distance" is down the street rather than across the nation affect high TEPS responses?Rather than unjustified optimism, do high-risk respondents "realistically," and perhaps with some comfort, report similar risk for others? After all, the high TEPS group reported greater salience of and knowledgeabout environmental issues; the group's realistic assessment of the distribution of risk may be a function of knowledge. Does the middle-risk group, neither convinced like the low-risk group that it faces relatively few risks, nor resigned to the "fate" of the high-risk group, employ the optimistic bias mechanism in order to deal with its ambiguity and relative (to the others) uncertainty?

Those who responded that there are more environmental problems where theylive also see the environment worsening in recent years; are more likely to seeenvironmental threats to the quality of life and health of "most people" where they live;and are more likely to see their own health at greater risk.

Those who responded that there are fewer environmentalproblems where they live

(low TEPS), are generally more favorable in their view of government as a sourceof environmental news than are those with more problems in theirbackyards. Not surprisingly, those with higher TEPS give poorer ratings to businessesand companies as sources of environmental news

However, and somewhat surprising in an era ofmedia-bashing, "local newspaper, radio and television" fared fairly well as environmentalinformation sources, compared to government and businesses and companiesand across TEPS levels. As could be expected,

one's view of whether environmental change has been positive ornegative in recent years

affects one's rating of government as a source of environmentalinformation. A similar

association exists with rating of businesses and companies as sources,but not to ratings of

17 113 the media. Those who see environmental threats to quality of life tend to view negatively government, businesses and companies, but not local media. When the focus turns specifically to threats to "most people's" health and "your own health," more negative evaluations are directed to government and business, but not to local news media.

Finally, perhaps one of the most intriguing findings is this relatively positive view of the local media's role in providing information about environmental threats and issues.

The distinct geographic location of the study sample might explain this finding: While government agencies are made up of the expert sources that most of us rely on to explain environmental dangers, and while government regulators are the enforcers we count on to protect us from such dangers, suspicion of government is often associated with rural and

Appalachian culture.Further, negative views of "exploitative" businesses and companies are as old in Appalachia as company mining towns.

Local news media, sometimes dismissed as lapdogs of those companies, businesses and (local) government, enjoy a position of trust as sources of environmental information, at least for the Appalachian Ohio River valley residents studied here.

1 The Associated Press, "Appalachian Area Has Deadly Distinction," The Athens Messenger Sept. 7, 1999, p. 1. 2 Neil D. Weinstein, "Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(1980): 806820. 3 Paul Slovic, "Perception of Risk," Science 236 (April 17, 1987):280-285. R. Alcalay, "The Impact of Mass Communication Campaigns in the Health Field," Social Science Medicine 17 (1983):87-94; L. Henriksen and J.A. Flora, "Third Person Perception and Children: Perceived Impact of Pro and AntiSmoking Ads," Communication Research 26 (December 1999):643-665; D.R. Rutter, L. Quine, and L.P. Albery, "Perceptions of Risk in Motorcyclists: Unrealistic Optimism, Relative Realism and Predictions of Behavior," British Journal of Psychology 89 (1998):681-696; Ola Svenson, "Are We All Less Risky and More Skillful Than Our Fellow Drivers?" Acta Psychologica 47 (1981):143-148; T.R. Tyler and F.L. Cook, "The Mass Media and Judgments of Risk: Distinguishing Impact on Personal and Societal Level Judgments," Journal of Personality

18 114 and Social Psychology 47 (1984):693-708; and Hugh M Culbertson and Guido H. Stempel III, "'Media Malaise': Explaining Personal Optimism and Societal Pessimism About Health Care," Journal of Communication 35 (spring 1985): 180-190. 5 Weinstein,"Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events," 1980. 6 John R. Chapin, "Third-person perception and optimistic bias among urban minority atrisk youth." Communication Research 27 (February 2000): 51-81. Ibid. 8 Neil D. Weinstein, "Perceptions of Personal Susceptibility to Harm," in V. Mays, G. Albee, and F. Schneider (eds.), Psychological Approaches to the PrimaryPrevention of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (pp. 142-167). Newbury Park, CA: Sage,1989. 9 See, for example, Thomas J. Darvill and Ronald C. Johnson, "Optimism and Perceived Control of Life Events as Related to Personality," Personality and IndividualDifferences 12(1991): 951-954, and K. Fontaine and S. Smith, "Optimistic Bias in Cancer Risk Perception: A Cross National Study," Psychological Reports 77(1991): 143146.. 10 V. Strecher, M. Kreuter, and S. Kobrin, "Do Cigarette Smokers Have Unrealistic Perceptions of Their Heart Attack, Cancer and Stroke Risks?" Journalof Behavioral Medicine 18(1995): 45-54. " Neil D. Weinstein, "Unrealistic Optimism About Susceptibility to Health Problems: Conclusions from a CommunityWide Sample," Journal of BehavioralMedicine 10(1987): 481 500. Weinstein found no correlation between comparativerisk judgments and age, gender, job status, and education. Weinstein first identifiedthe belief in exemption from future risk in this study, asserting that, for manyhazards, "an optimistic bias is introduced into comparative risk judgments when peopleextrapolate from their past experience (not having experienced aproblem) to conclude that their future vulnerability is relatively low. Such extrapolation appears morelikely when a problem is believed to have a hereditary origin (and to appear in childhood),when a problem is seen to be a matter of bodily resistance, or whenit is thought to have a behavioral or emotional origin." P. 496. See also Chapin, "Third Person Perception andOptimistic Bias Among Urban Minority AtRisk Youth," 2000. 12M. Quadrel, B. Fischoff, and W. Davis, "Adolescent(In)vulnerability," American Psychologist 48(1993): 102 116. " Michael B. Salwen and Michel Dupagne, "Optimistic Bias andthe ThirdPerson Effect: Public Estimations of Y2K on Self and Others," paperpresented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication convention,Communication Theory and Methodology Division, Phoenix, Arizona, August 2000, pp.16-17.. 14 Rutter, Quine, and Albery, "Perceptions of Risk in Motorcyclists: UnrealisticOptimism, Relative Realism and Predictions of Behavior," 1998. 15 Slovic, "Perception of Risk," 1987. 16 Weinstein, "Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events," 1980. 17 Peter Harris, "Sufficient Grounds for Optimism?: The Relationship BetweenPerceived Controllability and Optimistic Bias," Journal of Socialand Clinical Psychology 15 (1996): 9-52. 18 Tyler and Cook, "The Mass Media and Judgments of Risk: DistinguishingImpact on Personal and Societal-Level Judgments,"1984.

19 115 19Chapin, "Third Person Perception and Optimistic Bias Among Urban Minority AtRisk Youth," 2000. 20Culbertson and Stempel, "Media Malaise': Explaining Personal Optimism and Societal Pessimism About Health Care," 1985. 21 Salwen and Dupagne, "Optimistic Bias and the ThirdPerson Effect: Public Estimations of Y2K on Self and Others," 2000. n President's. Appalachian Regional Council, "Appalachia: A Report by the President's Appalachian Regional Commission," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1964. At http://www.arc.gov/research/resmain.htm.

23Andrew M. Isserman, "Appalachia Then and Now: An Update of 'the Realities of Deprivation' Reported to the President in 1964," Socioeconomic Review of Appalachia, a report prepared for the Appalachia Regional Council, November 1996. At http://www.arc.gov/research/resmain.htm. 24"Ohio Environmental Statistics and Indicators." At www.pepps.fsu.edu/segip/states/OH/stats.html. 25Clear the Air, "State Rankings for Electric Power Plant Emissions, 1998 TM [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Release Inventory] Data." At http://www.cleartheair.org. 26 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, "1998 Toxic Release Inventory: Ohio." At http://www.epa.gov/tri/tri99/state/Ohio.pdf 27"Ohio Environmental Statistics and Indicators." At www.pepps.fsu.edu/segip/states/OH/stats.html. 28Ohio Environmental Statistics and Indicators." At www.pepps.fsu.edu/segip/states/OH/stats.html. 29J. Nick Baird, "Public Health in Ohio: A Status Report," a report prepared for the Ohio Department of Health, 1999. At http://www.odh.state.oh.us. The town of Cheshire, Ohio, located in Gallia County, offers an example of the extent of the environmental issues facing the counties included in this survey study. In a landmark case in corporate environmental actions, American Electric Power Co. recently purchased the entire town for $20 million, after years of residents' complaints about power plant emissions, and two years after the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency accused the company of violating the Clean Air Act. The government had already bought out about two dozen neighborhoods in the town since 1973 because ofenvironmental problems. See the New York Times, "Utility Buys Town it Choked Lock, Stock and Plume," May 13, 2002, page Al. 31 Ohio Department of Development, "Employment by Industry, State and County Profiles," 1999. At http://www.odod.state.oh.us/osr/profiles. 32 Population and land data collected from Ohio Department of Development Office of Strategic Research 2000 Census at http://www.odod.state.oh.gov; hazardous waste information from "HazDat Database," Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov; toxic chemical release informationfrom U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "1998 Toxic Release Inventory: Ohio;" and electrical power plant emission data from Clear the Air, "State Rankings for Electric Power Plant Emissions, 1998 TRI Data." 116 20 " Ohio Department of Development, "Country Profiles," at http://www.odod.state.oh.usiosr/profiles. 34 Paired t-tests between means for "health of most people" (mean=3.0) and "how worried are you personally that you'll develop health problems related toenvironmental threats" (2.53) also yields a larger difference that is also significant (t=10.53, 400 d.f., p<.001). However, the wording of the "how worried" statement varies enough from the "how serious" format of the first statement to make us reluctant to argue its comparability. Given some of the operationalizations of optimistic bias discussed earlier, however, such caution may be unnecessary. These items were adapted from a questionnaire designed for a 1995 statewide survey conducted by the Ohio Comparative Risk Project. For details, see: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio State of the Environment Report (Columbus, Oh: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, December 1995). Chapin, "Third-person Perception and Optimistic Bias Among Urban Minority At-Risk Youth," 2000. 37 Weinstein, "Unrealistic Optimism About Future Life Events," 1980. 38 Edna Einsiedel and Bruce Thorne, "Public Responses to Uncertainty," in Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody and Carol L. Rogers, eds., Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999), 43-57.

21 117 Table 1 Opinions on Local Environmental Quality In Five Appalachian Ohio Counties (N=407)

Better Same Worse D/K Over the past few years, do you think the condition of the % % % % environment where you live has gotten better, stayed 21 50 26 3 about the same, or gotten worse?

Not Not Some At AllVery what Very D/K Generally speaking, how serious are environmental % % % % % threats to the quality of life where you live? 4 24 42 29 1

How serious do you think environmental threats are to the health of most people in the area where 6 20 40 33 2 you live?

How about you personally? How serious do you think environmental threats are to your health personally? 11 23 34 30 2

How worried are you personally that you'll develop health problems related to environmental threats? 17 31 33 18 1

How likely are people where you live to develop heart disease? 2 6 39 40 13

How likely are you to develop heart disease? 18 15 35 27 4

How likely are people where you live to have a yearly checkup? 15 20 35 27 2

How likely are you to have a yearly medical checkup? 10 4 15 71 0

Paired t-tests between means: "health of most people" (3.0)-"your health personally" (2.88): t=3.28, 396 d.f., p=.001 others' likelihood of heart disease (3.34)-"how likely are you" ( 2.81): t=9.11, 345 d.f., p<.001 others' likelihood of annual medical checkup (2.76)-"how likely are you" (3.49): t=12.59, 389 d.f., p<.001

(more) Table 1 (continued) How much of a problem is each one of these in the area Percentage Identifying as where you live: Serious'

Declining water quality in lakes, rivers and streams 85 Improper disposal or dumping of industrial or factory chemicals 75 People having to work with dangerous materials as part of their jobs 73 Unacceptable outdoor air quality because of pollution 66 Declining quality of water in underground wells 62 Accidental spills or leaks of chemicals 60 Unacceptable quality of drinking water 57 Exposure to lead 56 Lack of garbage or trash disposal facilities 53 Abandoned industrial sites 50 Indoor air quality problems because of asbestos or radon 48 Improper disposal of nuclear waste 47 Abandoned mines 43 Disappearance of native plant and animal species 40

Summed Total Environmental Problems Score(TEPS)2 Mean=7.6; Median=7; alpha=.81.

Over the past few years, do you think the condition of the environment where you live has gotten better, stayed Mean TEPS/s.d. (n) about the same, or gotten worse? Gotten better 7.1 /3.6(85) Stayed the same 7.1 /3.5(205) Gotten worse 8.9 /3.1(108) F=10.05 (2,395), p=.001

TEPS Level: Low Medium High (risks) (0-5)(6-8) (9-14) How serious do you think environmental threats are to the health of most people in the area where you live? mean: 2.582.97 3.33 How about you personally? How serious do you think environmental threats are to your health personally?mean: 2.482.78 3.25 paired t=1.28 2.76 1.79 (d.f.) (118)(115) (161) p= .20.007 .08

Combines "Somewhat Serious" and "Very Serious" responses. Other options were"Not Very Serious" and "Not Serious at All." 2For each of the 14 items, respondents were scored "0" if they indicated a risk was"Not Very Serious" or "Not Serious at All," and "1" if they indicated a risk was "Somewhat" or "VerySerious." The 14 items were summed, yielding a 15-point total risk score. 119 Table 2 Opinions on Local Environmental Quality, by Environmental Problem Score (TEPS)1

TEPS Level: Over the past few years, do you think the LowMediumHigh condition of the environment where you live hasn =(120) (119) (163) 2 gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten % % mean worse? Gotten worse 14 26 37 8.9 Stayed same 63 53 42 7.1 Gotten better 23 21 20 7.1 chi-square=19.7, 4 d.f., p=.001 F=10.05, p=.001 How serious are environmental threats to: the quality of life where you live? Not serious at all 9 1 1 4.0 Not very serious 43 23 10 5.4 Somewhat serious 29 50 50 8.2 Very serious 18 26 39 8.8 chi-square=68.12, 6 d.f., p=.001 F=27.8 p=.001 the health of most people? Not serious at all 16 3 2 3.7 Not very serious 29 21 11 6.3 Somewhat serious 36 51 39 7.5 Very serious 19 25 49 9.2 chi-square=60.15, 6 d.f., p=.001 F=27.9 p=.001 to your health personally? Not serious at all 18 9 4 4.9 Not very serious 36 24 16 6.4 Somewhat serious 28 48 33 7.7 Very serious 18 20 48 9.2 chi-square=58.32, 6 d.f., p=.001 F=22.9 How worried are you personally that you'll develop p=.001 health problems related to environmental threats? Not at all 34 11 9 5.4 Not very 39 38 22 6.7 Somewhat 21 36 41 8.6 Very 7 15 29 9.4 chi-square=66.27, 6 d.f., p=.001 F=25.4 p=.001

1, was broken into 1 The summed total environmental problems scale (TEPS), as per text and Table approximate thirds, based on the number of problems identified as serious: 0-5,6-8, and 9-14. 2 The mean for the TEPS (0-14), as per text and Table 1, before it was broken into thirds. The Fstatistic is for a oneway anova among means. Table 3 Media Use Measures and Information Source Performance, by Environmental Problems Score (TEPS)

TEPS Level.: OverallLow MediumHigh n= (405)(120)(119) (163) Media use mean scores: Hours of daily television: 3.443.28 3.39 3.58 F=n.s. Days per week of local news: 4.534.51 4.47 4.58 F=n.s. Minutes daily newspaper reading: 24.3622.77 25.49 24.71 F=n.s.

How good a job have your local newspaper, radio or television station done informing people where you live about environmental issues? Somewhat Somewhat Very Poor Poor Good Very Good

Mean hours television(n=395)2.9 3.5 3.4 3.7

Mean days tv news (n=395)3.9 4.6 4.6 4.7

Mean minutes reading(n=395)15.3 31.6 22.9 28.1 F prob.=.02 Table 3 (continued)

TEPS Level: Low MediumHigh Environ. Overall n =(120) (119) (163)Problems mean How good a job in informing people where you live about environmental issues: Government Very good 6 6 5 7 7.8 Somewhat good 36 46 33 32 8.1 Somewhat poor 36 28 41 38 7.2 Very poor 21 20 21 23 8.9 DK/not sure 5 chi-square=n.s.

Companies and businesses involved Very good 4 7 4 2 5.8 Somewhat good 33 39 32 30 7.0 Somewhat poor 34 30 37 35 8.0 Very poor 29 25 26 33 8.2 DK/not sure 4 chi-square=n.s. F prob.= .006 Local newspaper, radio, television Very good 23 27 24 19 7.0 Somewhat good 49 44 51 52 7.9 Somewhat poor 17 15 16 18 7.9 Very poor 11 13 9 11 7.7 DK/not sure 3 chi-square=n.s.

Environmental Problems: LowMedium High n= (120) (119) (163) mean mean mean mean Mean self-assessment scores, where 10 means statement describes R perfectly and 1 means statement does not describe at all: I consider myself knowledgeable about the environment. 6.21 6.0 6.2 6.4 F prob.=.06 Knowing about the environment really isn't that important to me. 3.90 4.4 4.1 3.4 F prob.=.31

There's not much we can do about the environment. 3.21 3.7 2.9 3.0 F prob.=.07

122 Table 4 Source Performance "Informing People Where You Live About the Environment," by Perceived Environmental Conditions

Environment has: Gotten Stayed Gotten Better Same Worse (n=81) (n=197) (n=102) Government Very poor 14.8 16.2 35.3 Somewhat poor 28.4 36.0 40.2 Somewhat good 50.6 39.6 21.62 Very good 6.2 8.1 2.9 chi-square=29. 1, 6 d.f., p=.001 Companies and businesses Very poor 24.7 21.9 42.7 Somewhat poor 35.8 33.7 34.3 Somewhat good 37.0 39.3 20.4 Very good 2.5 5.1 3.7 chi-square=19.0, 6 d.f., p=.001

Local media Very poor 9.8 7.9 14.3 Somewhat poor 22.0 15.3 15.2 Somewhat good 43.9 52.0 50.5 Very good 24.4 24.8 20.0 chi-square=5.9,6 d.f., p=.42

Environmental threats to quality of life are: Not Somewhat Very Serious' Serious Serious (101) (174) (109)

Government Very poor 16.8 16.7 33.9 Somewhat poor 33.7 36.8 35.8 Somewhat good 42.6 41.4 22.9 Very good 6.9 5.2 7.3 chi-square=19.1, 6 d.f., p=.004 Companies and businesses Very poor 23.1 22.1 43.0 Somewhat poor 31.7 38.4 31.6 Somewhat good 39.4 36.6 21.1 Very good 5.8 2.9 4.4 chi-square=21.5, 6 d.f., p=.001

I Because of the small number of cases responding "Not Serious At All," the original "NotSerious At All" and "Not Very Serious" categories were combined to form the "Not Serious" option.This did not change the pattern of significant and non-significant associations originally observed. 123 Table 4 (continued)

Environmental threats to quality of life are: Not Somewhat Very Serious Serious Serious (101) (174) (109)

Local media Very poor 9.7 6.9 18.3 Somewhat poor 11.7 18.3 19.1 Somewhat good 46.6 55.4 42.6 Very good 32.0 19.4 20.0 chi-square=18.3, 6 d.f., p=.006

Environmental threats to people's health are: Not Somewhat Very Serious Serious Serious (96) (165) (123)

Government Very poor 16.7 18.2 30.1 Somewhat poor 38.5 33.9 37.4 Somewhat good 38.5 44.2 23.6 Very good 6.3 3.6 8.9 chi-square=18.3, 6 d.f., p=.005 Companies and businesses Very poor 21.0 24.1 40.9 Somewhat poor 34.0 36.4 32.3 Somewhat good 39.0 36.4 22.8 Very good 6.0 3.1 3.9 chi-square=17.2, 6 d.f., p=.009 local media Very poor 8.0 9.1 15.6 Somewhat poor 13.0 18.9 17.2 Somewhat good 49.0 53.0 44.5 Very good 30.0 18.9 22.7 chi-square=9.53, 6 d.f., p=.14

124 Table 4 (continued)

Environmental threats to your own health are: Not Somewhat Very Serious Serious Serious (128) (93) (115)

Government. Very poor 14.1 18.4 33.0 Somewhat poor 41.4 34.8 32.2 Somewhat good 37.5 43.3 27.8 Very good 7.0 3.5 7.0 chi-square=18.7, 6 d.f., p=.005 Companies and businesses Very poor 20.1 26.6 40.5 Somewhat poor 34.3 39.6 28.4 Somewhat good 40.3 30.9 27.6 Very good 5.2 2.9 3.4 chi-square=15.9, 6d.f., p=.014 Local media Very poor 8.3 7.9 16.8 Somewhat poor 13.5 20.7 16.0 Somewhat good 51.1 52.1 45.4 Very good 27.1 19.3 21.8 chi-square=10.64, 6 d.f., p=.10

125 Context in print and online environmental articles

Ryan Randazzo, Reno Gazette-Journal (ryanrandazzo(@,hotmail.corn)

and

Jennifer Greer, Reynolds School of Journalism University of Nevada-Reno (idgreer(unredu)

Abstract

A content analysis of environmental articles in leading U.S. dailies revealed that few of nine types of context examined were included in the printed version of the articles. None of the newspapers were using the potential of the Internet consistently to add more context to their environmental articles online. In fact, fewer contextual elements appeared online than in the print versions.

Presented to the Science Communication Interest Group of the Association for Education in

Journalism and Mass Communication Miami, FL, August, 2002. Context in print and online environmental articles, 2 In recent decades, Americans have become increasingly concerned with the interaction of our society and the environment (Askari, 1995) and have looked toward the news media to keep them informed on that interaction. About 81% of Americans depend on the media for environmental news, according to one survey (Kennett, 1993). To quench the public thirst for information, the news media have increased the amount of coverage of environmental issues (Foundation for American Communications [FACSJ, 1993). With the dawn of the "environmental decade" in the 1970s came the formation of environmental journalism with the purpose of conveying environmental issues to the public (Shoenfeld, 1980). Since then, environmental journalism has established itself as a legitimate field of reporting with a large audience. Some large newspapers now employ more than half a dozen writers to cover the environment (Chepesiuk, 1993). Although coverage of environmental issues has been popular for more than three decades, critics say this coverage is wrought with problems. One common complaint is that the media don't put issues into proper context; quotes are taken out of context, and current work is not related to other research (Walters, 1996). The World Wide Web gives news organizations the potential to correct this flaw (Tenenbaum, 1997). While some news organizations use the same articles in their print and online versions, others have taken advantage of the Internet's potential to provide more information to readers. In addition to the ability to run longer, more in-depth articles, some online versions of newspapers like The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor link articles to archived material on the same topic (Fredin, 1997). Some organizations use links to other information sources, such as government databases, that add greater context, depth, and texture to online stories (Pavlik, 1997). Other news organizations have included court transcripts, search warrant documents, wiretap transcripts of drug dealers, and other features online that would be impossible in print (Pavlik, 1997). To compete as a news medium, newspaper journalism on the Internet must fully exploit the medium's basic properties (Fredin, 1997). This study examines what types of context the leading U.S. daily newspapers include in their environmental coverage and whether they are using the potential of the Web to improve context in theircoverage. Print and online environmental articles appearing in The New York Times, The Los Angles Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and The Christian Science Monitor are examined. Additionally, differences in context among newspaper titles are analyzed. Literature Review In 1947 the Hutchins' Commission (The Commission on Freedom of the Press) called for a new kind of journalism. The first duty of newspapers was "to give an accounting of the day's events in a context that gives them meaning," according to recommendations the commission published (Commission for Freedom of the Press, 1947, p. 20). More than 50 years later, critics contend that the media still fail to put issues in proper context (Griffin, 1992). These criticisms are especially loud for environmental reporting. Trying to report complex, controversial, scientific issues well is difficult (Cowen, 1985; Garrison, 1992), and the limitedspace of the print medium exacerbates these problems. To report on the environment, journalists must educate themselves regarding controversial issues that even experts do not often completely understand (Fischoff, 1996).

127 ESTCOPYAVAILABLE Context in print and online environmental articles, 3 A 1993 survey of journalists showed that only 3% considered current environmental coverage to be "very good," and 40% rated it as "good," (FACS, 1993). Incorporating more context into stories regarding the environment is among the improvements sought by experienced environmental journalists (Cowen, 1985). Salomone, Greenberg, Sandman, & Sachsman, 1990). Giving background information that helps readers put issues in context in relation to their lives is an important part of journalism. If journalists fail to do so, readers are not likely to understand events and grasp their significance and potential consequences (Griffin, 1992). The importance of context Context, defined as coherent analysis that helps makes complex topics understandable, is necessary in newspaper reporting because of competition from other media such as television and radio, which offer little context (McCleneghan, 1997). Newspapers must add more perspective, analysis, and interpretation to the news to be different from other media by adding more depth to the news (McCleneghan, 1997). Because of the limitations of the print medium, newspapers struggle to compete with the timeliness of television and radio. What newspapers can offer that those mediums cannot or commonly do not is analysis and interpretation. A good analytical news story creates understanding by showing that what happens in one time or place is related to what happens in other times and places (Hart, 1994). Context is important because research has shown that readers learn more from articles with background and context included (Griffin, 1992). Readers can miss out on the relative importance of the issue if an article on a scientific subject fails to include some background information. Articles need to contain full perspective and background of an issue or they may harm the credibility of scientists and journalists (Burkett, 1986). Omitting information from an article may lead to distortion of the issue (Burkett, 1986), which could in turn lead to a biased representation of the issue. Observers offer various causes for the lack of context. First, in contrast to the deliberative nature of scientific inquiry, newsrooms are fast-paced workplaces where information is processed and passed along as quickly as possible. Because of these differences, information passed along by the media in news stories fails to fully explain issues or at least explain them in a manner acceptable to scientists (Salomone, 1990). A second cause for the lack of context is journalists' poor sense of scientific information (Keating, 1997). Once reporters have been on the environmental beat for a significant amount of time, they tend to move on. New, lesser- experienced journalists who are unable to provide context and competent reporting replace them (Keating, 1997). And third, even experienced journalists are constrained from writing long articles with ample context by the cost of newsprint, which accounts for 20% of a newspaper's expenses and affects the profitability of newspapers (Vivian, 2001). How context can be included in articles Hart (1994) outlines three ways to include context in articles. First, journalists should make historic connections to events, placing the current issue in historical context. Second, writers can draw other, similar examples, the same way a reviewer compares movies. Third, reporters can add averages or statistics that describe the overall situation. Graphics can also add context to articles. Topics as wide ranging as space shuttles to bypass surgery are all made easier to understand with the inclusion of photographs, schematics, and illustrations Context in print and online environmental articles,4 (Garrison, 1992). Repeatedly giving the contextual information of an article to the reader helps people make sense of complex issues. Research has shown that readers learn the most from articles with repetitive contextual information interwoven in the article and also written in a separate text box accompanying the article (Griffin, 1992). These techniques helped people understand foreign news better than if they read articles with no background information or articles with contextual information in text references or pull out graphics alone (Griffin, 1992). The Internet and Journalism Science, health, finance, and technology draw the most attention from people going online for news (The Pew Center, 1998a), which may mean environmental journalism has a potential to draw a large readership online. The Internet holds the promise of allowing print journalism to break free of its traditional limitations, which in turn could lead to more context online (Pavlik, 1997). The Internet's strengths include the immediacy and ability to break and update news as it occurs, the nearly limitless news hole, the ability to include references and links to more information, the interactivity available for readers, and the ability to archive information. Each of these is examined in turn. Immediacy. The potential to break stories immediately sets the Web apart from print media. So many major stories have been broken on the Internet before they have come out in print that news of such occurrences has become redundant (Fitzgerald, 1998). Lasica urges frequent updates: "Online news should be about getting current news and information to people when they want it or need it, not when it's convenient ...What matters to readers is staying on top of local and national events...adding context, background, balance, and perspective to events as they unfold" (1997, p. 48). The Why Files, a science news site based at the University of Wisconsin- Madison, did just that in its 1996 coverage of the wildfires across the United States. A linked map of fire-burned areas changed daily as the fire-damaged areas grew (Tenenbaum, 1997). Unlimited space. Adding words or other information online is virtually free. Salon.com once ran a 6,000-word article that was rejected by The New Yorker as too lengthy (Lasica, 1998). The nearly unlimited capacity to store and print information online can be especially helpful in conveying scientific issues because graphs and diagrams make scientific subjects much easier for the public to understand (Garrison, 1992). An example of the larger news hole being put to use is the addition of the full text of court depositions and other official documents online to enhance news articles (Fitzgerald, 1996). And some outlets, such as CNN, are offering up to 10% original content not available anywhere else in print or through television (Pavlik, 1998). A 1999 survey of online editors found that some used the limitless space of the Web to give expanded news coverage. But by a 3 to 2 margin, online editors showed preference for limiting the amount of information provided online compared to the print product (Peng & Tham, 1999). References and links. Occasionally Web articles contain reference material and links with more information for readers. These outside links can be to other articles on the same topic or they can be to outside Web sites that provide a perspective to the reader unavailable in a print version of the article (Pavlik, 1997). However, providing outside links does not necessarily mean additional information in an article. A 2000 study

129 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Context in print and online environmental articles, 5 found that 25% of print newspaper articles appearing in major newspapers contain URLs, or Web addresses (Trumbo & Trumbo, 2000). This study found that, rather than adding context to stories by giving URLs to information sites, most print versions of newspapers seemed to be providing URLs to commerce sites rather than government or educational sites aimed at providing more background material (Trumbo & Trumbo, 2000). Peng and Tham (1999) found that nearly all online newspapers provide links to outside sources, yet fewer than half linked to other news sites. Interactivity. While traditional newspapers can offer a means of projecting different opinions through letters to the editor, the Internet offers an instant forum for communication. The interactive capabilities of the Internet allow readers to communicate with one another in chat rooms immediately after reading an article, should the Web editors provide that service. After the school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, journalist Jonathan Dube spent hours chatting online with more than 1,600 readers. He was able to convey facts that hadn't fit into his articles and, in effect, created a new article that the readers helped shape with their questions (Dube, 1999). Audio and Video. Online newspapers do not have to rely on the traditional format of newspaper articles because they are able to use new technologies like audio and video. Real-time audio and video technologies have been available since 1997 when RealNetworks introduced "streaming" technology (Williams, 2000). Online newspapers have made limited use of these technologies. Gubman and Greer (1997) found that only 14.5% of online newspapers used audio, video or animation in their news sections. The Washington Post used these capabilities when reporting on Hurricane Bonnie (Featherly, 1998), and The Los Angles Times has used video and audio technologies to enhance articles on other issues (Phipps, 1998). Editors at USA Today and other large newspapers have created content-exchange deals with television stations owned by the same company to have access to video footage for their Web sites (Williams, 2000). Archiving. Another way in which the Internet may help provide context to readers is through archiving information. Online editors can link all of the articles the newspaper has written on a particular subject from the most current article on that subject. A 1998 survey found that people go online for news for exactly this reason, to search for news about a particular topic. This was the third most common reason people looked online for news behind finding information unavailable elsewhere and convenience (The Pew Center, 1998b). Archiving articles may be a good idea for online editors. If consumers can't find the information they want from local newspapers online, they will go to other news sites like MSNBC or CNN (Lasica, 1997). A survey by the Pew Research Center (1998b) found that readers were already beginning to turn to other news sites, with the national broadcast station Web sites being more popular than national newspaper Web sites. Research questions With all of the potential, it is still unclear if and how newspapers are using the Web to convey more scientific information to readers. Factors such as time and cost-benefits may prohibit print media from using the Web to add more context to environmental issues. Singer (1997) found that coverage of the 1996 presidential election by Denver's two daily newspapers available online actually was less than that provided in print in an analysis of two major newspapers. One of the newspapers only provided 6% of the election coverage online that

130 Context in print and online environmental articles, 6 it did in print, while the other published about 15% of the coverage on its Web site (Singer, 1997). One explanation given by managers at the newspapers for this is that the election was national news available many places on the Internet and that their niche was local news. The study also found that the articles that did appear online were rarely different than the print version. Thus, despite the opportunity to run a longer version of the articles, they had already been cut by the editors and went into the online version as they appeared in print (Singer, 1997). This study asks if the same patterns are found in environmental coverage. Are newspapers running longer articles, adding reference material, adding graphics and images, updating material, immediately breaking news, adding external links, and using interactivity to improve context in environmental news coverage? The following research questions are posed to shed light on the issue: RQ1: How much and what type of context do leading U.S. daily newspapers provide in their print versions of environmental articles? RQ2: Does context in print articles vary by newspaper title? RQ3: Are leading U.S. daily newspapers taking advantage of the Internet's capabilities to provide more context in online versions of environmental articles than in the print versions? RQ4: Does the difference between print and online context vary by newspaper title? RQ5: How does presence of an adversarial frame relate to the amount of context provided? Method A content analysis was conducted to get a picture of what is typical in both print and Web coverage of the environment in leading U.S. dailies. Population and sample As of early 2001, more than 3,400 U.S. newspapers had online versions of their newspapers (Newslink, 2000). Most of the articles on the Web sites are exactly the same as those that appeared in the print version, (Fredin, 1997; Houston, 1999) a publishing method known as "shovelware" (Thalhimer, 1994). Large national newspapers are more likely to experiment with different content on their Web version than the print version (Fredin, 1997). Gubman and Greer (1997) found that only 15.7% of newspapers with an online version used linked boxes and non-linear storytelling methods on the articles appearing on the Web. They also found that only 14.5% used multimedia such as audio or video in their news articles, although multimedia was being used on their sites in advertising. This study found that large newspapers were more likely than small newspapers to use these features. Singer, Tharp, and Haruta (1998) showed that larger newspapers were more likely to have separate staff members for online operations. Cole (1975) selected from the nation's largest newspapers to draw a sample of science articles under the presumption that the larger newspapers have the capability to hire science writers. In addition, Trumbo (1995) used a sample of leading newspapers because their articles are likely to be reprinted in many other smaller newspapers owned by the same company, increasing the influence of the large, prestigious

131 Context in print and online environmental articles, 7 newspapers. For these reasons, this study used leading national newspapers to determine if differences exist in articles between print and online versions, and to examine differences among newspapers. The four opinion-leading newspapers in the country are The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The Los Angles Times (Krantz, 1994). USA Today has a larger circulation than any of these (Vivian, 2001). Because The Wall Street Journal is a business newspaper rather than a general interest national newspaper like the others (Vivian, 2001), USA Today was used in this study in place of The Wall Street Journal. The influence of USA Today is strong because of its size and because of the distribution of its stories in other Gannett newspapers (Vivian, 2001). The Christian Science Monitor, another national newspaper, also was chosen because of its depth in science and environmental coverage. The most efficient way to get a representative stratified sample of the content of a daily newspaper for a given year is to gather two constructed weeks of data (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 1998). Cole (1975) used three constructed weeks from each of three years--1951, 1961, and 1971--to measure trends in science news coverage. However, McMillan (2000) found that most Web content analyses emphasize a particular time frame because the changing site content necessitates rapid data collection. The, fleeting nature of the Web and the lack of uniformity in how newspapers archive their content, necessitated a fixed time period of data collection for this study, which was the three week period from February 22 to March 14, 2001. Lacy, et al. (1991) used the type of purposive sample this study will use to compare conflict coverage among 12 large circulation newspapers in a study similar to this one. This method was appropriate because, although not random, it was intended to compare certain context in coverage among newspapers and between print and online editions. Lacy, et al. (1991) compared conflict coverage among the 21 newspapers with a mean of 16 articles from each newspaper. This study attempted to collect at least 40 articles from the print version of each newspaper, enough from each title to perform meaningful statistical analyses. Unit of analysis Each print version of an environmental article collected during the sample period was one unit of analysis and the Web version of the article was another. Each version of an article got its own code sheet. The entire article was analyzed because of the way variables were measured. All environmental articles identified in the print version of the newspaper were included in the study. If the article was subsequently identified on the newspaper's Web site, that version was included in the study as well. Any environmental article with a byline in the main news section, business section, local news section, lifestyle section or science section of the newspaper was used. Articles in the advertising sections of the newspapers were not used. As with other newspaper research, opinion/editorial pieces were not included (Li, 1999). The study analyzed only articles produced by the newspaper's staff and not those by a wire service used in the newspapers. This decision was based on the assumption that online editors would be more likely to invest resources in improving articles produced by their own staff and not those from a service. Only articles with bylines were used, as briefs and other short articles are frequently taken from wire services. Even if the staff writes the briefs, the articles are unlikely to be enhanced for the Web.

132 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Context in print and online environmental articles, 8 For the this study, environmental articles were those that regarded any of the following: air pollution, water pollution, solid waste, deforestation/logging, endangered species, population growth, government departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Interior including state-level agencies, natural resources, urban sprawl, animal rights, invasive species, biotechnology, genetically engineered food, ecology, mining, global warming, wildlife, wilderness areas, national parks, national forests, environmental racism, eco-feminism or any other topic germane to the environment. To be used in the study, the article had to have a major focus, which revealed itself in the headline or first five paragraphs, (Boyle, 1995) on one of the topics listed above. Articles that only mentioned briefly environmental issues were not included. During the collection period, two coders tracked the print newspapers for any environmental articles. Next, coders looked for articles on the respective newspaper's Web site. Only environmental articles on the Web site that had a print counterpart were coded. During the collection period, only two articles were found online and not in print. One was an advertorial; the other included a page number for the print edition, suggesting that it was inadvertently left out of the print version. Reliability between the two coders on 10% of the stories (N = 41) ranged from 87% (N = 2) to 100% (N = 16), with an average of 96%. Context The context errors that scientists note the most in reporting of their work are quotes taken out of context, lack of reference to other research, and a lack of perspective of the issue (Walters, 1996). Because interviews with quoted individuals would have been required to determine whether quotes in the articles were used in proper context, that criteria of context was not measured in this study. Past research has conceptualized and measured context in several other ways. This study borrows nine of these, each coded as present (1) or not present (0). These measures are summarized below. Reference to research the article is based on. One study found that 40 percent of science articles are significantly different than the research on which they are based (Walters, 1996). A reference to research appearing anywhere in the article including photograph captions and cut-lines was coded as present. Links to the original research in the Web version also were coded as present. Historical context. Hart (1994) suggested other ways to add context to news, including adding historical information. Comparison using similar examples. Hart (1994) suggests writers draw other, similar examples to issues to add context, the same way a reviewer compares movies. Reference to other research. This study also coded for reference to other research that pertained to the topic in each article. Sources of more information. Whereas print newspapers are limited in the amount of information they provide, the Web allows more information to be included and linked to. The presence of sources where readers could find more information, such as telephone numbers or Web addresses, was recorded.

BEST COPYAVAILABLE 133 Context in print and online environmental articles,9 Three types of visual elements. Readers can understand science better with the aid of photos, diagrams, maps, and other visual aids (Tenenbaum, 1997; Griffin, 1992; Garrison, 1992). Three variables were examined in this category: 1) maps, 2) photographs, 3) diagrams or illustrations. In addition, the total number of visual elements accompanying a story was recorded. Audio and video. Current technology allows for visitors to watch videos or listen to audio clips provided by Web sites (Williams, 2000). These formats may enhance environmental issues in the same manner as still visuals. Any audio or visuals included in a story were recorded. Because audio and video are not possible in print editions, this variable was automatically coded as not present in print articles. Three other variables also were examined. First, to compare overall context, the nine variables above were summed to produce a context score. Second, article length was measured in number of paragraphs. If a difference was found between the print and online editions, the articles were examined word-by-word to determine whether actual differences existed in the story length. Finally, the presence of an adversarial frame was noted. An adversarial frame is dichotomy or duality in an article. The most obvious feature of this is representation of issues in terms of two distinct, mutually exclusive camps (Karlberg, 1997). Cole (1975) coded science newspaper articles for the presence or absence of conflict. If there was a mention of at least one antagonist or contradictory, opposing sides of an issue or a reason for conflict, then the article was coded as having conflict. This study coded for any presence of an adversarial frame in the same manner, either present or not present. Results During the sample period, 215 environmental articles were coded from the print versions of the five newspapers. Of the articles, 96% (N = 206) appeared on the Web. Only 4% (N = 9) of the articles appeared in print only, adding to a combined total of 421 coded articles from print and the Web. The Los Angles Times had the most articles during the period and The Christian Science Monitor had the least. The Christian Science Monitor and The Washington Post transferred 100% of the articles in the sample to the Web; USA Today transferred the smallest percentage (see Table I). Table 1. Newspaper articles online and in print. Newspaper Print Online (percent Total transferred online) USA Today 44 39 (89%) 83 Los Angles Times 58 56 (96%) 114 New York Times 50 48 (96%) 98 Christian Science Monitor 19 19 (100%) 38 Washington Post 44 44 (100%) 88 Total 215 206 (96%) 421

RQ 1: How much and what type of context do leading U.S. daily newspapers provide in their print versions of environmental articles?

134 Context in print and online environmental articles, 10 Of the eight variables related to context that could be included in a print article, historical information was the most frequently occurring in the sample. The least likely context variable to be included was maps, closely followed by sources for more information (see Table 2). Audio and video, of course, were not present in any of the articles, but this variable included for later comparison to online articles. Table 2. Types of Context included in print environmental articles. Context variable. Percent of articles containing this form of context. Historical information 74% (N =159) Photos 49% (N =106) Similar examples 45% (N =97) Reference to research 28% (N =60) Reference to other research 25% (N =54) Diagrams/illustrations 23% (N =50) Sources of more information 15% (N =32) Maps 14% (N =29)

A context score was created for each article by combining the total of the nine possible context variables present in that article. The score could theoretically range from 0, meaning the article contained none of the context variables, to 9, meaning it contained them all. Audio and video obviously contributed a zero to this score for all print articles, meaning they could only range in score from 0 to 8. The mean context score for all of the print articles was 2.73 (median = 3, mode = 2). The number of visual elements and paragraphs in the articles also was recorded. The mean number of paragraphs was 22 (median = 20, mode = 24). The mean number of photographs per article was 0.83 (median = 0, mode = 0). The mean number of maps per article was 0.19 (median = 0, mode = 0). The mean number of diagrams or illustrations per article was 0.42 (median = 0, mode = 0). RQ 2: Does context in print articles vary by newspaper title? A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated a significant difference between newspapers for the number of diagrams and illustrations included in print articles (F (4, 211) = 3.53, p < .01) and for number of paragraphs in print articles (F (4, 212) = 3.58, p < .01). A slight, but not significant difference was found for the total context score of print articles (F (4,211) = 2.03, p < .10). Post hoc analyses using Tukey's HSD demonstrated that, for the number of diagrams and illustrations, USA Today (M = 0.95) had significantly more present in articles than the Los Angles Times (M = 0.31, p < .05). USA Today also had significantly more diagrams and illustrations than The New York Times (M = 0.32, p < .05) and The Washington Post (M = 0.27, p < .023), and slightly more than The Christian Science Monitor (M = 0.16, p < .06). For story length, post hoc analyses also demonstrated that The Los Angles Times had significantly more paragraphs (M = 27) than USA Today (M = 17, p < .003). The rest of the newspapers' mean number of paragraphs fell between those scores.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 135 Context in print and online environmental articles, 11 Differences in the total context score were approaching significance between USA Today (M = 3.09) and The Washington Post (M = 2.2, p < .06) with the other three newspapers falling between those scores. Other differences in the context provided in the newspapers appear when comparing each discrete type of context. Crosstab analysis displayed a significant difference in references to research included in the print articles of the newspapers (x2(4) = 23.65, p < .001). USA Today was twice as likely as expected to include a reference to research the article was based on, while the rest of the newspapers were less likely than expected to include this information. Crosstabs analysis also displayed a significant difference for presence of historical information (x,2(4) = 12.21, p < .05). USA Today was less likely to include this information than expected, while The New York Times and The Washington Post were more likely than expected to include historical information. The Los Angles Times and The Christian Science Monitor provided this information almost exactly as much as their expected values indicated. A significant difference in which newspapers included photographs with their print articles also was found (x2(4) = 14.96, p < .01). USA Today was less likely than expected to include photographs with articles, while The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor were more likely to include photographs than expected. Significant differences also emerged for sources for more information (x2(4) = 13.41, p < .01). USA Today was twice as likely as expected to provide these sources, while The Washington Post was six and a half times less likely than expected to do so. The other three newspapers provided sources of more information in proportion to what was expected. RQ3: How does presence of an adversarial frame relate to the amount of context provided? An independent samples t-test found that the average structural context score for articles in the entire sample written in an adversarial frame (M = 1.84) was significantly lower than for articles not written in an adversarial frame (M = 2.97, t (419) = 6.79, p < .001). Articles with an adversarial frame were significantly less likely (x2(1) = 16.82, p < .001) than those without an adversarial frame to contain a reference to research the article was based on. Articles with an adversarial frame were also significantly less likely than those without an adversarial frame to have a similar example of the issue used as a comparison (x2(1) = 7.33, p < .01), to have a reference to other pertinent research (x2(1) = 8.78, p < .01), to have diagrams or illustrations (x2(1) = 7.04, p < .01), or to provide sources of more information (x2(1) = 5.67, p < .05). No significant difference was found between adversarial and non-adversarial articles for historical information, photographs, or maps. Adversarial and non-adversarial articles did not differ significantly on the number of photographs, number of maps, or number of paragraphs included. But the number of diagrams and illustrations in adversarial articles (M = .14) was significantly lower than the number appearing in non-adversarial articles (M = .53, t (213) = 2.31, p < .023).

136 Context in print and online environmental articles, 12 RQ4: Are leading U.S. daily newspapers taking advantage of the Internet's capabilities to provide more context in online versions of environmental articles than in print versions? Independent samples t-tests compared the mean number of photographs, maps, diagrams and illustrations, audio and visual elements, and total context scores. Print articles had a higher average number of photographs and maps than online articles. No other significant differences were found (see Table 3). Table 3. Average number of context elements appearing online v. print. Variable Mean Print Online Number of photos? .83 .511 Number of Maps? .19 .072 Number of diagrams? .42 .46 Number of audio/video? .00 .05 Number of paragraphs? 21.82 21.85 Total context score 2.73 2.62 ' t (419) = 3.03, p < .01; 2t (419)=1.98, p < .05

Crosstabs analyses were run on the discrete context variables to compare each for print and online versions. Far fewer online articles contained photographs than expected (x2 (1) = 10.82, p < .01). Online articles also were significantly less likely than expected to include maps (x2(1) = 9.3, p < .01) and diagrams and illustrations (x2(1) = 5.17, p < .05). Online articles had more sources for more information than expected (x2(1) = 15.65, p < .001). No other differences were found between print and online versions. RQ5: Does context online compared to print vary by newspaper title? Crosstabs analyses were conducted to determine if articles in the five newspapers were more likely to contain any of the nine context variables in their print or online versions. Independent samples t-tests were conducted between the online and print versions of each newspaper to determine if there was a significant difference in the number of photographs, number of maps, number of diagrams or illustrations, or total context score. Print articles in USA Today were more likely than online versions to include photographs (x2(1) = 8.81, p < .01). When USA Today articles had photographs, the number accompanying print articles (M = 0.75) was significantly greater than the number accompanying online articles (M = 0.15, t (81) = 2.4, p < .05). Print articles in The Los Angles Times were more likely than online articles to contain maps (x2(1) = 8.85, p < .01). Articles in The Los Angles Times had a significantly greater number of maps when they appeared in print (M = 0.79) than when they appeared online (M = 0.64, (112) = 3.07, p < .01). The print articles in that newspaper also had a significantly greater number of diagrams and illustrations (M = 0.31) than the online articles (M = 0.13, t (112) = 2.03, p < .05). Online The Washington Post articles included photographs significantly less often than expected (x2(1) = 5.73, p < .05). Articles in this newspaper had a significantly greater number of photographs when they appeared in print (M = 0.61) than when they appeared online (M = 0.18, t (86) = 2.87, p < .01). Online articles from The

137 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Context in print and online environmental articles, 13 Washington Post were significantly more likely than expected (x2(1) = 14.97, p < .001) to contain sources for more information. Online The Christian Science Monitor articles were more likely than expected to have sources for more information (x,2(1) = 5.73, p < .05). Online articles in The New York Times also were significantly more likely than expected to have sources for more information (x2(1) = 3.98, p < .05). No other differences were found between print and online for these newspapers. Summary of findings Nearly all of the environmental articles that appeared in print were transferred to the Web, with two newspapers, The Christian Science Monitor and The Washington Post, transferring all of their environmental articles to the Web. All of the eight possible types of context were found in at least a small percentage of the print articles. On average, articles included less than three of the story components that can add context. The most common component was historical information, followed by photographs; maps were the least common type of context included. The mean number of paragraphs per article was 22, and some had more than 90 paragraphs, fairly long for newspaper articles. The individual newspaper titles varied in the amount of context they provided in their print environmental articles. Despite having the shortest articles, USA Today had the highest context score and was the most likely to include a reference to research the article was based on. USA Today had more diagrams and illustrations than the other newspapers. While only 15% of the articles provided sources for more information, USA Today was far more likely to do so than the others. The Washington Post was far less likely to do so. The Los Angeles Times had significantly more paragraphs in environmental articles than USA Today but not the other newspapers. The New York Times and The Washington Post were more likely than the other newspapers to include historical information. The study revealed that stories presented with an adversarial frame included less context overall than non-adversarial articles. None of the newspapers appear to be using the potential of the Internet consistently to add more context to their environmental articles. In fact, fewer contextual elements appeared online than in the print versions. This is true only for visual elements, such as photographs and maps, and not for text elements like references to research and historical context. Because in most cases the text appearing online was, identical to what appeared in print, some elements of context appeared online in the same abundance as in print. The only way that more context was included with articles appearing online was if sources of more information not found in the print version were included. Often, these were links to more information and, in many cases, were links to previous articles published on the site. Overall, the online versions of articles were more likely to have sources for more information. Among newspaper titles, The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and The Washington Post articles were significantly more likely to provide sources of information online than in print.

138 Context in print and online environmental articles, 14 Implications Because there is no baseline to compare it to, it is difficult to make a statement about the amount of context provided in environmental articles in the leading U.S. daily newspapers. The average context score of 2.73 for print articles appears low considering that a total score of 8 was possible (with audio and video excluded). It is hard to imagine an article containing two references to research, a similar comparison, historical information, a map, a diagram, a photograph and a place for readers to find more information without taking up a considerable amount of space in the newspaper and considerable resources from the staff. To look at this result in the best light is to say that the leading newspapers provide some degree of context in their environmental articles based on what the critics say is missing. They also provide all types of context but not all in each article. To look at it another way, it is likely the newspapers could work to include more of these context variables in each article, as the average article is lacking many of the attributes of context. Frequently included forms of context. The newspapers are doing a good job of providing context in the form of historical references, photographs, similar examples used as a comparison, and diagrams and illustrations. The presence of historical references outnumbering other types of context is not surprising. Reporters may be familiar with an issue because they have written about it before, making it easy to include historical information. Photography is of course a major part of journalism, so the large percentage of environmental articles that contained photographs is not surprising. Almost half of the articles compared the issue featured to a similar issue. Nearly a quarter of the environmental articles included a diagram or illustration, most likely a larger percentage than for newspaper articles in general. As stated above, observers have argued that science-based issues are often best explained with diagrams and illustrations. Editors at leading U.S. daily newspapers seem to realize this. The frequent inclusion of diagrams and illustrations may also relate to environmental articles being written as feature articles in special weekly sections. Some of the articles in the sample were breaking news written on a short deadline. Others, such as those longer than 90 paragraphs, obviously had a longer deadline allowing more time for visual elements to be prepared. Infrequently included forms of context. The newspapers are not often providing context in the form of references to research, sources for more information, or maps. Maps were found least often but were not absent from environmental articles. Maps may have been included less often than other visual elements of context because for local environmental issues, the readership is familiar with the area. The newspapers in the sample are national newspapers though, and from observation, most of the articles examined did not appear to be local issues. While maps were found less often than any of the other elements, the editors may have special guidelines for including them when appropriate. If not, the infrequent inclusion of them certainly warrants attention and the creation of such guidelines. The infrequent mention of sources of more information on the issues raises questions. Are these not included because of space constraints or because editors think readers wouldn't be interested? In either case, the lack of sources for more information leaves the readers on their own without any guidance as to where to look to learn more about the issues. 139 Context in print and online environmental articles, 15 References to additional research also are rare, perhaps indicating that many environmental issues reported in leading U.S. daily newspapers are not based on or about scientific research. This makes some sense, because an environmental article can be about a debate over environmental regulations, in which case other story elements are more pertinent than research. At some level though, most if not all, environmental issues are based on research. Differences among newspapers. It was not surprising that USA Today articles contained diagrams and illustrations more often than the other newspapers, or that it had significantly fewer paragraphs in articles than The Los Angles Times. After all, the print version of USA Today is known for these traits. Brief articles may also explain why USA Today included sources for more information more often than expected; readers are sent to other sources that couldn't be included in the short articles. What was unexpected was that the total context score for USA Today articles was higher, although not significantly, than all of the other newspapers and that USA Today had more references to the research on which the articles were based. This result can be viewed at least two different ways. First, articles in USA Today are more often research-based or second, that the writing in USA Today is less enterprising as it is often based on press releases from research institutions without further interpretation. The question of which way to view the findings can't be answered without further research, but from observation of the sample articles the reason for USA Today including more references to research appears to be a mix of the two. Finding that The New York Times and The Washington Post were more likely than expected to include historical information is not surprising, as they appear to only be including more than USA Today. That The New York Times includes more photographs with environmental articles than the other newspapers may be due to the special weekly science section of that newspaper where most of the environmental articles were found. The preparation of that special section may allow for more photographs than the other newspapers. Curiously, articles containing conflict and written in an adversarial frame have a lower amount of context. However, this is likely the reason why The Washington Post had a nearly significant lower context score than USA Today. The Washington Post had a greater percentage of adversarial articles, and its lower overall context score can likely be attributed to that. Context online vs. print. The drop in the context score as the articles were transferred to the Web was surprising. Also unexpected was that only 5 of the 206 articles appearing online had audio or video and the online versions had significantly fewer photographs and maps. While there were some enhanced interactive diagrams online, only a handful of articles were longer online than their print counterparts. These minor enhancements didn't appear in a large enough quantity to indicate that the context is being enhanced online. It is important to note here that the findings for print articles don't necessarily indicate a significant need for improvement. But the findings do indicate that the potential of the Web is not being put to use to improve the context in environmental articles to any significant extent. Finding that The Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times, and The Washington Post are the only three adding sources for more information to their online articles in significant proportions also was unexpected,

140 Context in print and online environmental articles, 16 as adding links to an article is technically simple. Whatever the reason, the editors are passing up an opportunity to give their readers more information in a relatively easy way. The missed potential for context to be enhanced online might be the result of the economic pressures facing the newspaper industry. Some media outlets have already faced large cutbacks in their online departments (Barringer, & Kuczynski, 2000). Additionally, some editors may be hesitant to devote resources to an unprofitable part of the operation. Finally, the technical limitations also may work against enhancing context. Adding images, audio or video to a Web page decreases the speed at which the page loads. The utility of such advancements is not completely understood, and it could be that the decision-makers at the major newspapers do not see the usefulness of such features as they relate to their print articles. The speculation about why so little context was found points out the need for research examining the factors shaping print and online environmental content at these leading papers. Surveys or depth interviews with environmental reporters and editors, as well as online editors, would help shed light on these findings. Conclusion The leading U.S. daily newspapers are providing some context in their environmental articles, but there is room for improvement. The inclusion of research is lacking. Because scientific research is the foundation of environmental issues, journalists should strive to more often base their reporting on research. Another area where the major newspapers are failing is in referring readers to sources of more information. In the event readers wish to learn more about the issues, they should have some guidance as to where to find such information. This is especially true online, where more information is a simple click away. Giving readers a direct link to more information is a simple way to increase the transmission of information on issues. Furthermore, photographs, maps, and other visual elements should be included in articles transferred to the Web. If these elements are omitted online because of financial concerns, the people making these decisions should consider how they could make money from a product less visually stimulating than their print product. It is only logical that if the major newspapers ever hope to attract a large, profitable audience to their online product, that product is going to have to be at least as complete as the print product, and likely more in-depth and interactive.

141 Context in print and online environmental articles, 17 References Askari, E. (1995, October). Readers thirst for more about their environment. The American Editor, 771, 14-17.

Barringer, F., & Kuczynski, A. (2000, June 12). Net journalism tries to regroup after layoffs and setbacks. The New York Times, p. Cl.

Boyle, T. (1995, October) Newspaper coverage of the I.R.A. cease-fire: A comparative study. Paper presented to the AEJMC.

Burkett, W. (1986). Distortion and how to avoid it.In News Reporting: Science, Medicine and High Technology (pp. 61-74). Iowa State University Press.

Chepesiuk, R., (1993, December). Covering the environmental beat: nation's top policy makers address the Society of Environmental Journalists conference. Editor and Publisher, 126, 18-20.

Cole, B., J. (1975, Autumn). Trends in science and conflict coverage in four metropolitan newspapers. Journalism Quarterly, 465-471.

Commission for Freedom of the Press. (1947). A Free and Responsible Press. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Cowen, R. C., (1985, July). Science writers: angels or devils? Technology Review, 8816.

Dube, J. (1999, July, August). The water's fine. Columbia Journalism Review, 37.

Featherly, K. (1998, November). TV's threat gets bigger on the Web. Editor and Publisher, (Suppl.)16-20.

Fischoff, B. (1996, July/August). Reporting on environmental and health risks. The Quill, 43-46.

Fitzgerald, M., (1996, April 13). The effect of the Internet on print journalism. Editor and Publisher. 129, 72-74.

Fitzgerald, M. (1998, February 14). Defending Web journalism. Editor and Publisher, 131, 50.

Foundation for American Communications. (1993). The press and the environment: How journalists evaluate environmental reporting. Los Angles, California.

Fredin, E. S. (1997, September). Rethinking the news story for the Internet: Hyperstory prototypes and a model of the user. Journalism and Mass Communication Monographs, 163, 1-47.

Garrison, B. (1992). Science and technical news problems. In, Advanced Reporting: Skills for the Professional. (pp. ). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Griffin, J., L. (1992, Winter). Influence of text and graphics in increasing understanding of foreign news contexts. Newspaper Research Journal, 13, (1-2), 84-98.

Gubman, J., & Greer, J. (1997, July-August). An analysis of online sites produced by U.S. newspapers: Are the critics right? Paper presented to the newspaper Division, Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication 80th annual convention, Chicago.

Hart, J. (1994, July). Finding Meaning. Editor and Publisher, 127, (28), 5.

Houston, F. (1999, July-August). What I saw in the digital sea. Columbia Journalism Review. 38, 2, 34-37.

142 Context in print and online environmental articles, 18 Karlberg, M. (1997, Winter). News and conflict: how adversarial news frames limit public understanding of environmental issues. Alternatives Journal, 23, 22-28.

Keating, M. (1997, Winter). Three decades on the green beat. Alternatives Journal, 23, 11-14.

Kennett, J., (1993, July). Survey of journalists shows industry has little effect on media agendas. Environment Today, 4, 8.

Lacy, S., Fico, F., & Simon, T. F. (1991, Fall). Fairness and balance in the prestige press. Journalism Quarterly, 68 (3), 363-370.

Lasica, J. D. (1998, June). Breakthrough on the Web. American Journalism Review, 20, 5.

Lasica, J. D. (1997, June). Time to freshen up online newspapers. American Journalism Review, 19, 48.

Li, X. (1999, September). National interest and coverage of U.S.China relations: A content analysis of The New York Times and People's Daily 1987-1996. Paper presented to the AEJMC annual convention, New Orleans.

Lin, C., W., W-Y. (2000, Fall). Content analysis of the World Wide Web: Opportunities and challenges. Social Science Computer Review, 18, 3, 272-292.

Lyman, F., (1994, Winter). Mudslinging on the Earth-beat. The Amicus Journal, 15, 39.

McCleneghan, J. S. (1997). Searching for 'analysis' in the Southwest: AM vs. PM newspapers in four 'fire zones.' Social Science Journal, 34, (1), 21-33.

McMillan, S., J. (2000, Spring). The microscope and the moving target: The challenge of applying content analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 1, 80-98.

Newslink. (2000). [On-line]. Listing of U.S. newspapers online. Available: http : / /ajr.newslink.org/news.html

Pavlik, J. V. (1997, July/August). The future of online journalism. Columbia Journalism Review, 36, 30-37.

Peng, F., Y., & Tham, N., I. (1999, Spring). Trends in online newspapers: A look at the US Web. Newspaper Research Journal, 20, 2, 52-63.

Phipps, J., L. (1998, October 24). Newspapers win with election news. Editor and Publisher, 131, 43, 30.

Rife, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F. G., (1998). Analyzing media messages using quantitative content analysis in research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Salomone, K. L., Greenberg, M. R., Sandman, P. M. & Sachsman, D. B. (1990). A question of quality: How journalists and news sources evaluate coverage of environmental risk. Journal of Communication, 40 (4), 117-131.

Shoenfeld, A., C. (1980, Autumn). Newspersons and the environment today. Journalism Quarterly, 456- 462.Singer, J., (1997). A big enough Web for the both of us? Online coverage of the 1996 election by Denver's warring newspapers. Paper presented at the AEJMC annual convention. Chicago.

Singer, J., Tharp, M., & Haruta, A. (1998). Superstars or second-class citizens? Management and staffing issues affect newspapers online journalists. Paper presented at the 1998 conference of the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago.

143 Context in print and online environmental articles, 19

Tenenbaum, D., (1997, Summer). Writing for the web. SEJournal, 7, 2.

Thalhimer, M. (1994, Winter). Hi-tech news or just "shovelware"? Media Studies Journal, 8, 1, 40.

Trumbo, C. (1995, August). The life course of an environmental issue: Claims, Frames, and Global Warming. Paper presented to the Science Interest Group at the Annual Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington D.C.

Trumbo, C. (1996, December 19). Trouble in the tank or trouble in the head? Television news coverage of the reformulated gasoline health study in Milwaukee: A critical analysis. A paper submitted to the Science Interest group of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Anaheim.

Trumbo, J. M., & Trumbo C. W. (2000, August). Daily newspaper use of Web addresses: Longitudinal analysis of new content form. Paper presented at the AEJMC annual convention. Phoenix.

Vivian, John. (2001). The Media of Mass Communication (6th edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Walters, L. M., & Walters, T. N. (1996, December). It loses something in the translation: Syntax and survival of key words in science and non-science press releases. Science Communication, 18, 165-175.

Williams, J. (2000, February 7). Sites go straight to video. Editor and Publisher, 1, 6, 133-138.

1 4 4 Framing the Environmental Agenda: A Qualitative Comparison of 1970 Nixon Speeches and Time Magazine

Diana Knott, Ph.D. Assistant Professor E. W. Scripps School of Journalism Ohio University 102 Scripps Hall Athens, OH 45701 (740) 597-1294 [email protected]

Presented to the Science Communication Group AE_IMC Miami, FL August 8, 2002

RUNNING HEAD: ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA Framing the Environmental Agenda: A Qualitative Comparison of 1970 Nixon Speeches and Time Magazine

Abstract

This study compares the rhetorical frames employed by President Richard Nixon and Time magazine's reporting in 1970 to gain a better understanding of early

mainstream environmental references. The frame Nixon used most often wasthat of the need for a collective, unified effort to address the nation's environmental problems. By contrast, the frame used most often by Time was that of the economy andquality of life versus the environment.

146 The year 1970 was a watershed for the United States environmental movement.

Only the year before, television had afforded the nation views of Ohio's Cuyahoga River literally on fire 1 and close-ups of oil-soaked wildlife in a Santa Barbara, California, marine reserve. 2 These dire consequences of our industrial laissez faire were reinforced by reports of Apollo 13 astronauts, who described seeing smog-enshrouded cities from space. The same moon-landing mission underscored at oncethe seeming fragility and beauty of the "blue planet," as seen by the world in photographs taken during the voyage.

Indeed, prior to 1970, the nation's environmental policy had been largely limited to managing its natural resources, not regulating industry or controlling pollution. Such issues had been considered "local problems," as President Dwight Eisenhower had called them.3 But a decade later, Lyndon Johnson's administration did take notice of environmental issues, resulting in water and auto exhaust legislation.4 Yet it was Richard

Nixon's administration that would herald modern environmental regulation at a coordinated federal level.

Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act on national television, New

Year's Day, 1970, declaring it "the decade of the environment." In addition to

encouraging "productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment," it

mandated environmental impact statements across federal agencies and created the

Council on Environmental Quality.' Certainly it was an issue that the public, astute

politicians, and a savvy Nixon administration all welcomed. In addition to appealing to

Americans' common sense, the environment was employed as a cohesive issue in a

147 nation sorely divided by civil, social, and military unrest. Nixon stated as much in his

1970 State of the Union message:

The great question of the seventies is, shall we surrender to our surroundings, or shall we make peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, our land and our water? Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of America.6

These words introduced a year of numerous environmental firsts. It was a large, broad-based general publicchildren and adults alikewho joined Senator Gaylord

Nelson of Wisconsin and a handful of his volunteer organizers to celebrate the first national Earth Day on April 22, when "teach-ins" occurred on college campuses and in communities around the country. It demonstrated, said policy scholars Norman Vig and

Michael Kraft, "ecology's new place on the nation's social and politicalagendas."'

Federal clean air regulations followed under the Clean Air Act, which for the first time set national standards to which states had to adhere, and the federal Environmental

Protection Agency was created in July to integrate the various departments' pollution programs.

Previous research has documented that the "dramatic rise in citizen awareness in

1969 and 1970 made pollution a major news story. An information explosion occurred in the mass media and accompanied the spectacular rise in public concern about the environment."8 Indeed, Time began a separate environment section in its August 1,

1969, issue. The section was introduced in a letter from Publisher James R. Shepley, who wrote, "America the Beautiful can all too often be described as America the

Polluted, and anxiety about the quality of life has become a rising political issue.4

Times January 4, 1971, issue heralded the environment as the 1970 "issue of the year," and a study of Newsweells environmental coverage from 1969 to 1975 found the

148 highest number of environmental articles appeared in 1970 (totaling57, 26 percent of the study's population)."

Therefore, 1970 is a rich year for investigating the origins of themainstream environmental movement as communicated to the public. This paperexplores (1) how

President Nixon framed the environmental issue in 1970 speeches and(2) how Time framed it. It also explores whether the environmental movement wasmarginalized or otherwise dismissed or not taken seriously via the frames invoked.Specifically, this

paper examines the words Nixon used to define issuesof the environment and those that Time used in setting the context of the problem, defining the issues tobe addressed, and providing the toolsor conceptsby which the public might come to

understand them. Specifically, this study aims to expand the knowledgeof early federal

environmental rhetoric and concurrent mainstream media coverage to helpscholars

better understand resultant public opinion, political expectations, andsocial action.

These rhetorical frames are important to document for they do not occur in a vacuum;

rather, they make up the rationales, reasons, and parameters of publicunderstanding

and debate about issues.

Literature Review

Bruce Williams and Albert Matheny contend that "events like the first EarthDay

in 1970 marked the emergence of environmentalism as a powerfulsocial movement,"

and Douglas Torgerson wrote: "Upon entering the public scene, environmentalism

disturbed the established discourse of advanced industrialsociety."n Scholar M. C.

McGee offered a rhetorical theory of social movements that Kevin DeLucadescribes as

"an account of the social consciousness of a society."12 DeLuca continues by saying,

149 "social movements are changes in the meanings of the world, redefinitions of reality,

with such realities always being constructed through the filter of rhetoric."°

As early as 1922, Walter Lippmann wrote of the media's power to illuminate

issues for the public, as if a spotlight were temporarily focused on them, bringing them

into view.14 Issues that presidents espouse are even more likely to be illuminated. Says

scholar John Kingdon: "The [presidential] administration ...is a powerful agenda

setter. When a president and his top appointees decide to place a high-priority on a

given item, agendas are set all over town. Members of Congress, bureaucrats, and

lobbyists all pay attention to that priority item."15 Communication scholar Bernard Cohen

also discusses the symbiotic relationship of the government and press, saying that the

government's publicity efforts result in media coverage, which is then interpreted by

other officials as public opinion.16 Presidents are in the position to "raise issues to the

public's attention, define the terms of public debate, and rally public opinion and

constituency support through speeches, press conferences, and other media events,"

say Vig and Kraft. "Without presidential endorsement, major policy initiatives have rarely

been successful."17

Similarly, presidents use the press not only to influence opinion, but also to

observe the press's reaction as an indicator of what the public might think. An aide to

President Carter called the press a useful "litmus test" for indirectly gauging the public's

reaction to proposed public policy.18

A study by Jeffrey Cohen revealed presidents played an active role in civil rights

policy development, influencing public opinion and setting the agenda on that issue

rather than reacting to the public's agendas.° He concluded that it was the discretionary

nature of the issue, as opposed to pressing economic and foreign relations issues, that

15o allowed presidents considerable influence in getting public attention and support.

Although environmental problems were becoming highly visible to many Americans if

not directly, then through the mass mediait certainly was not as urgent an issue as

many others were in 1970, such as the Vietnam War.

In addition to the president setting the media agenda, the media, too, have been

found to set the agenda for both the president and the public. In a series of four

studies, Wayne Wanta et al. found that the direction of agenda setting indeed flowed

two ways. Their research suggested that in 1970, President Nixon influenced the press

agenda overall. One researcher has noted, "Much of people's awareness about the

environment and environmental issues may come not from direct experience but from

media attention to the subject. The issue is unobtrusive, and therefore more susceptible

to mass media influence."20

Indeed, several studies have found media agenda-setting effects for

environmental issues. Pollution, toxic waste, environmental protection, and energy

supply are among those issues for which effects were found.21 More recent work has

drawn on the concept that McCombs et al. have called agenda-setting level two, or the

attributesor framesof a message. 22 This concept implies that the way in which a

message is structured conveys not only what to think about,but also how to think about

it, including the saliency it invokes. 23

William Gamson wrote that facts evoke meaning only in that they are "embedded

in a frame or story line that organizes them and gives them coherence, selecting certain

ones to emphasize while ignoring others."24 Political scholar MurrayEdelman describes

framing as a construction of perceived social realities.25 Political scholar Thomas Nelson

et al. put forth a similar definition, referring to framing as "the process by which a

151 communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy. By framing social and political issues in specific ways, news organizations declare the underlying causes and likely consequences of a problem and establish criteria for evaluating potential remedies for the problem."26 Communication scholar Dietram Scheufele expounded upon the framing literature, noting, "It is rather likely that this frame-building function of mass media has a greater impact for relatively

new issues (i.e., issues for which no frames have yet to beestablished [in the public's mincl])."22

In 1970, the environment as a political issue was no doubt new to many

Americans. But, as a 1990 German study illustrated, the amount and type of coverage could well have had an effect on the movement. The German national election study

indicated that the framing of an issuein addition to frequent coverageinfluenced overall salience toward that issue.28 Scholar Alison Anderson notes, "Studies of

environmental news coverage in a variety of countries have found that official sources

(particularly government departments and scientists) tend to enjoy advantaged access

to the media and become 'primary definers' of the issue inquestion."29

Methods

Nixon speeches were obtained from the Public Papers of the Presidents and were

identified through the book's index under the heading "environment." There were 35

1970 speeches identified in which the president spoke about the environment. (A

complete list of speeches reviewed is included in Appendix A.)

The table of contents in each of Time's 1970 issues was examined. Of the 52

issues, 41 had an environment section. One issue's section pages were missing;

152 therefore, 40 issues were reviewed and analyzed. Advertisements, photographs, and

articles outside the environment section were not included in this study. Time was

selected for this study because it was the oldest and most widely circulated

newsmagazine of the day, along with its national circulation, emphasis on the issue, and

its general reputation for being rather conservative in tone. Its reporting, then, could be

considered mainstream discourse of the day. (See Appendix B for a complete list of the

magazine issues reviewed.)

Frames were noted and categorized according to the rhetorical frames identified

by researchers Catherine Collins and Susan Kephart in their environmental framing study

of biodiversity. 3° These same frames were selected for this study because they emerged

from Collins and Kephart's textual analysis about a broad environmental topic and

because the author found these frames useful in a prior study about an environmental

issue.31 Collins and Kephart's frames and definitions appear below, with their

adaptations for this study indicated in brackets: 1) ecosystems [environment] as unique

=Measures [that should be saved for future generations] (emphasis on pristine and

unique aspects; culturally or otherwise valuable; irreproducible state of Eden), 2)

biodiversity [environment] as political football (a candidate's [official's] position becomes

an electoral asset or liability), 3) economy vs.environment(incompatible agendas;

environmental protection yields economic ruin or threatens quality of life), 4) race

against the clock (species becoming extinct; urgency), and 5) No progress due to political wrangling (decisions on environmental legislation not based on scientific or

moral grounds; they are restricted by partisan political maneuvering).

In addition, because some consider the rise of environmentalism to be a social

movement, frames identified by Todd Gitlin in his study of the major media's framingof

153 the "New Left" in the 1960s also were used.32 The frames Gitlin identified included those

that served to trivialize the movement, demonstrate polarization of views, emphasize

dissension within the movement, and marginalize the movement.

Frames that did not fit any of these classifications but nonetheless emerged in

the study were also noted. These included the following: complicated, interrelatedness

of issue; naïve optimism; "new" way of thinking; individual and collective responsibility,

unifying issue; international issue; science will save us. To add additional context to the

study, results of 1970 Gallup polls that addressed issues of the environment also were

consulted to determine the public's opinion during this time.

Findings

Tables 1 and 2 below relay the framing categories and frequencies with which

they occurred, in descending order of occurrence.33

Table 1. Nixon Frames and their Frequencies

Frame Number of Times Used individual and collective responsibility/unifying issue 16 apocalyptic, race against the clock, urgency 13 "new" way of thinking 11 unique treasures, future generations 9 complicated, interrelatedness of issue 8 international issue 7 economy v. environment 6 political credit/football 6 naïve optimism 5 science will save us 5 marginalization/radicalism political wrangling

154 Table 2. Time Frames and their, Frequencies

Frame Number of Times Used economy v. environment 43 apocalyptic, race against the clock, urgency 28 "new" way of thinking 24 complicated, interrelatedness of issue 16 marginalization/radicalism 12 political credit/football 9 political wrangling 7 international issue 7 individual and collective responsibility/unifying issue 6 unique treasures, future generations 1 science will save us 1 naïve optimism

The frame of individual and collective responsibility/unifying language was the most prevalent among Nixon's speeches and appeared most heavily earlier in the year, but appeared consistently through the end of August. (See Figure 1.) This finding corroborates suspicions of a political strategy to help unify a divided nation (or, as some critics daimed, divert attention from the divisive issues of war and civil rights). An example of this frame appears in Nixon's February 6 speech in Chicago. He said, "In order to deal with this problem, it is going to require total mobilization....the total mobilization of the Nation, the mobilization of the Federal Government, the State governments, the local governments, of industrial producers, and also of the individual citizens."

The second most commonly used frame by Nixon was that of the problem's urgency. This theme began with his January 1 statements, in which he made several references to the issue being so serious as to be addressed "now or never." Again, this frame appeared most frequently in the early part of 1970, as he apparently tried to impress upon the public the dire state of environmental matters. Certainly these sorts of

155 individual,FramesFigure 1. Numbercollective and responsibility, Types of Environmental unifying issue Frames Used by Nixon in 1970 xJan. Feb.0000000c March Speeches, by month April May June July xvoocAug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Total uniqueapocalyptic, treasures,new race way againstfuture of thinking generations the clock, urgency I 1 )000c )ocxx 000c x x )oocvooxoocYX< )oocx 111316 internationaleconomycomplicated, v. environment issueinterrelatedness of issue x xxxx x )ocx xxxX1000C x x 689 sciencepoliticalnaive optimism credit/footballwill save us xxoc )ocx x x xx x xxx 657 politicalmarginalizationtradicalism wrangling I x 05 emotional appeals could help increase the saliency of the issue in the public's mind and thus help set the political agenda on this issue.

The third most common frame found in Nixon's speeches was a focus on a "new" way of thinking and acting in our sodety. This again placed the responsibility on the society at large as well as on individual citizens, scientists, and industrialists to change the previous societal mindset of consumption without consequences and inexhaustible resources. His August 10 message to Congress included the following: "We need new knowledge, new perceptions, new attitudes....We must seek nothing less than a basic reform in the way our society looks at problems and makes decisions."

By comparison, Nixon did not raise the economy v. environment frames very often, and when he did, it was mainly to refute the perceived dichotomy. For example, in his February 25 speech at the National Governors' Conference he said, "One reaction is that there is an irreconcilable conflict between economic growth and happiness or economic growth and a decent life in this country. It just doesn't happen to be true."

This stance makes sense, for Nixon's purpose, it seems, was to emphasize the collective, unifying aspects of the problemnot the oppositional ones.

In contrast,Time'sframes overwhelmingly reflect their oppositional nature. (See

Figure 2.) For example, the February 2 issue said, "The result of massive production is massive filth."Timeused this frame throughout the year, but it appeared most heavily in July. Nixon referred to the dichotomy most often in August, again trying to negate it.

Just as in Nixon's speeches, the second most common theme inTimewas the race against the clock or urgency frame. Twice in this study, the magazine specifically picked up on this frame from the president's speeches, by referring to and quoting from them, and in one case, editorialized by saying: "Nixon's words come none too early."

157 Figure 2. Number and Types of Environmental Frames Used by Time in 1970, by month apocalyptic,individual,Frames collective race against responsibility, the clock, unifying urgency issue xxJan. yoocxxxFeb. March xxApril xxxxxMay June )0000C(July )000(Aug. Sept. Oct Nov. )0(xDec. Total 6 complicated,uniquenew treasures, way interrelatedness of futurethinking generations of issue x y000c)c0000c )0( xx )3(xxx xx x=a x x xxx xxx xxx 162428 1 politicalnaYveinternationaleconomy optimism credit/football v. environment issue xx xy0000cxoo x 'mac =a xxyacc000cooc xx xxxx xxxxyccocx x)c( 43 07 politicalmarginalization/radicalismscience wrangling will save us xx xxxxx x xxx )0(xxxx )0(x x xx x 12 7 19 Another common environmental frame in Timet1970 coverage was the complicated, interrelatedness of the environmental issue.It induded the recognition that solutions could not be simple and would not be easythrough statements such as the following, which appeared in the May 25 issue: "Ecologistsknow that removal of even one element, like leaves, will touch off achain of related changesall of them probably for the worse."

As shown in figures 1 and 2, there is also evidence of ashift in frames during the year. Early in 1970, Nixon seemed toemphasize the urgency of the nation's environmental state and the collective, unifying nature ofthe problem and solution.

These two themes again appeared in August. Thenaïveté shown in the first half of 1970

through such statements as the following, which he voicedFebruary 10, "The lives ... in

the future, motorist and pedestrian, are going to bepollution-free," disappeared after

July. Similarly, the science-will-save-us frame also was mostheavily emphasized early in

the year, but declined by August, when the complicated natureof the problem began to

be discussed. Likewise, the emphasis on new outlooks andapproaches toward the

environment was most heavily emphasized during August aswell.

The more emotional unique treasures/future generations.frame wasused by

Nixon when he was campaigning for fellow Republicancandidates in October. In

contrast, the international frame was fairly consistentthroughout, and as might be

expected, the political football frame appeared most heavily atthe end of the year,

when Nixon expressed how governmental efforts take timeand predicted 1971 to be the

"year of action" regarding environmental regulation.

Time gave comparatively little emphasis on the collectiveresponsibility or

unifying issue of the environment, using this frame most often(three times) in February,

159 perhaps picking up on the heavy emphasis Nixon placed on it during that month.Time

did, however, indude references to the urgency of the situation, the need for "new"

thinking and approaches, and the economy v. environment frame throughout the year.

Therefore, it is possible that Nixon's relatively later emphasis on these issues could have

been spurred by the media's framing.

Other differences between Nixon's and Timet framing included the virtual absence of the "unique treasure" frame in the magazine, perhaps because such emotionally laden rhetoric naturally fits more readily into political speech than news coverage. There also seemed to be a more realistic sense of the nation's environmental problems in77me,as evidenced by the absence of the naïve optimism frame and only a single occurrence of the science-will-save-us frame. Technology topics were included in

Time,and there were indications that these innovations would help the nation address its problems, but science was not considered a panacea.

Timefocused more on the political wrangling involved in addressing environmental issues in the first half of the year and also included frames that denoted some marginalization and radicalism during that time period as well, perhaps because of a perceived threat to the status quo. Although few examples of Gitlin's sodal movement frames were found in this study, those that were found focused primarily on the marginalization of young "radicals" and the trivialization of some Earth Day coverage.

For example, the May 5 issue ofTimedescribed the celebration thusly: "Much of the day was given to theater and ritual. At the University of Wisconsin, 58 separate programs were staged, including a dawn 'earth service' of Sanskrit incantation. Some students at

Florida Technological University held a trial to condemn a Chevrolet for poisoning the air." In his study ofNewsweek,Babcock also found a rather dismissive tone to that

G newsmagazine's 1970 Earth Day coverage as well as a relatively short-lived attention

3a span regarding the environment over the next five years.

Still, Gitlin's frames did not emerge as dominant themes in Time and did not appear in Nixon's rhetoric at all. This latter pointmakes sense, as the president was trying to convey a sense of importance to the nation as a whole and thus made attempts to emphasize the environment as an issue that required effort from every individual as well as from the collective nation. At times, the magazine even seemed to position the mainstream environmental movement as separate and distinctfrom the

"radicals." The April 27 Time included the following: "Unless young radicals stir up trouble, which is always possible these days, the emphasis will be mainly on education."

Both Nixon and Time emphasized the environment as a new cause for the young. For example, in its March 16 issue, Time proclaimed,The environment has become the number one issue on campus." However, this was not the case in January, when Gallup polled college students and, although the polling companyheralded "air and water pollution, quality of educationnew 'causes' on campus" in a reportheadline, the results actually showed "control of air and water pollution" to be sixth on thelist of domestic changes sought, behind poverty, race relations, urban problems, education, and welfare issues.35

A February poll representing all U.S. adults found that air and water pollution was eighth on the list of the nation's most importantproblems.36 Public policy scholars argue that an increasingly affluent and well-educated society wasplacing new emphases on their quality of life during this time, but no doubt other, morepressing and vitriolic issues also were brewing in 1970.

161 Still, one might argue that agenda-setting evidence appears in the June Gallup

poll, after the prevalent mass media coverage of Earth Day. That month, reducing air

and water pollution came in secondjust three percentage points behind reducing

crimeas one of the problems that the public would like to see the government devote

most of its attention to in the coming year.37 Although the issue remained high on the

list of U.S. and other world leaders' urgent problems in the following month's polls,

(ranking third and fifth among the leaders, respectively), the U.S. public did not include

'pollution among the nation's top nine most important problems.38 Perhaps the public

believed that now that the government was involved, environmental problems were

being sufficiently addressed.

By October, pollution was not listed among the top five most important

problems, but it was not totally off the public agenda. In November, a poll found the

majority of Americans expressed a willingness to pay an extra $100 per automobile if it

had anti-pollution devices installed, and 58 percent of Americans said that pollution

would be "extremely important" in their voting decisions regarding Congressional

candidates.39

Despite the increase in environmental coverage in 1970, it apparently still was

not high on the list of reporters' issues either, at least as far as the president's news

conferences were concerned. After the president's New Year's Day announcement that the 1970s would be the "decade of the environment" and his emphasis on the environment in his State of the Union address, there were no questions about this issue at the next press conference January 30.4° Nor were there questions about the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at the July 20 press conference.41 At the

December 10 conference, only the funding of the Super Sonic Transport (SST) jet was

162 raised, which had been previously explored in Time in terms of thejet's potential contribution to noise pollution. Even the press's questions about thefiring of Secretary of the Interior Harry Nickel late in the year centered not onNickel's environmental stances, but on how much "dissension" was toleratedwithin the administration.42

Perhaps this seeming lack of media attention following Nixon's earlyJanuary focus on the environment spurred the president to praise the press who werecovering this topic. Remarks following a meeting of the Cabinet Committee onthe Environment and the Council on Environmental Quality in Chicago, Illinois,February 6, induded the following:

"I finally would like to say that I want to congratulate the members of the press in the Chicago area. I noted, for example,the articles that have been appearing in the Chicago Tribune in this field, and the fact thatthe Tribune named an environmental editor. I know that the other papers in the area, the Sun Times, the Daily News, and others as well,that they have showed very great interest, and that the television stations and others have indicated an interest in this problem."

Overall, Time mentioned President Nixon specifically in terms of his environmental policies and speeches a dozen times in 1970. Althoughthere was evidence of similar framing of the environmental issue, it was notoverwhelming and possibly could have gone both ways, as Wanta et al.'s research showed,with the president leading the press agenda at times, and the press influencingthe president's at other times. Indeed, Wanta and Foote's broadcasting study foundevidence that for social issues, such as crime and the environment, the president may usethe media to help determine the issue's importance.43

However, this study's results can only condusively point to thediversity of the environmental issue itself. As Time Publisher Shepley wrote in the issueannouncing the environment section: "Environment will describe the exciting ideas ofarchitects, city

163 planners, ecologists, engineers, politicians and plain people. These ideas will include,

among many others, dispersing glutted populations, building new experimental cities,

designing steam and electric autos, restructuring mass transit, recycling all kinds of

wasteand in general making this world a more livable place:44

Indeed,Time'sdefinition of the environment was as broad as the "new science"

of ecology. The topics included in 1970 ranged from the problem of dog feces in cities

and electrical "brown-outs" to overpopulation and the wealth beneath the sea. Other

topics included wildlife, noise, visual aesthetics, urban and land-use planning, suburban

sprawl, technology, air and water pollution, timbering, farm runoff, billboards, the

Vietnam War chemical defoliant "Agent Orange," legal issues, and off-road/all-terrain

vehicles. In this regard, the coverage was atypical of contemporary studies that have

found news media to typically embrace an episodic, rather than thematic, frames

Timesuse of a broad range of sources also is impressive. The magazine profiled

and quoted professionals in myriad fields, induding law, education, science,

conservation, trappers, industrialists, and government officials. While much research has

shown that environmental journalism stories predominantly use government sources, this was not the case inTimes1970 coverage46This makes sense in that there were

not many official government sources on the topic at that time; therefore,Timesought out and used other types of sources. Such diversity also supports the environmental complexity frame found throughout much ofTimestext.

In retrospect, the overall scarcity of Gitlin's social movement frames also is not surprising. After all, an issue taken up by the president and included as a regular section in a mainstream publication does not reflect an issue at odds with society. However, once the framing analysis was under way, there was clearly evidence of all four of

1.64 Robert Entman's framing functions (defining the situation,diagnosing causes, making moral judgments, and offering remedies).47 Occasionally,Time writers blatantly provided editorial comments, demonstrating the saliency of the issue,at least to that particular writer. The issue of "advocacy" versus "objective" reportingremains a contentious issue among environmental reporters today.

Still, the most common Time frame by far was a generallyadversarial one, pitting the economy and quality of life against environmental concerns.Although conflict is an entrenched news value, a 1997 study by MichaelKarlberg argued that such framing actually harms the environmental movement by limitingpublic understanding.°

Karlberg's recommendations include employing a diversityof perspectives and a nonconfrontational tone to help further environmental causes.With few exceptions

(e.g., the marginalization/radicalism frames), Time did agood job of incorporating diverse perspectives, even within its use of the environment v. economyframe. The prevalence of the race-against-the-dock frame from both sourcesmirrors the findings of

Collins' and Kephart's study, for that frame was used mostoften in their study of news about biodiversity.

Other findings of this study included not only the recognitionthat a new way of thinking about the environment and society's consumptivehabits was needed, but also the emergence of individual citizens as environmentalstakeholders. In contrast to the interpretation of Robert Gottlieb, who found the media coverageof that era to define solutions in terms of individual behavior rather than societalchange, I found that solutions were defined in both areas." For example, in anAugust 8 speech, Nixon said:

"The job of building a better environment is not one for governmentalone. It must engage the enthusiasm and commitment of our entiresodety. Similarly, the active

165 participation of the business community is essential." In addition, both the dire and

optimistic predictions concerning the year 2000 also were fascinatingespecially from

this vantage point in historyand included warnings of oil depletion, starvation, the

extinction of all mammals, and the optimistic belief that poverty would be eliminated in

our cities.

Limitations and Discussion

Limitations of this study include the subjective nature of frame interpretation, the

analysis of only one news medium, and the short time period studied. Additionally,

several of the dozen frames employed in this study could be interpreted as overlapping,

such as the two political frames, the naïve optimism and science will save us frames,

and the collective responsibility, interrelatedness of the issue, and "new" way of thinking

frames?" Although more general, mutually exclusive frames could make coding easier

and more uniform, some of the description of more specific frames could be

compromised. Still, it is interesting to note that three of the five categories Downs

identified as part of social "issue attention cycles" could be identified in this study. Those

middle three categories included "alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm,"

"realizing the cost of significant progress," and "gradual decline of intense public

interest." (The other two categories were "pre-problem" and "post-problem:151

Through its more detailed frames, this study provides a snapshot of mainstream environmental rhetoric used in the early days of the environmental movement, which

could be argued helped set the tone for future public understanding and debate. This study also demonstrates some of the similarities (e.g., conflictual frames) and contrasts

166 (e.g., diverse sources) between early environmental journalism andmore contemporary

conventions.

Future research might explore andcompare environmental frames used by

presidents Nixon through Clinton, both the alternative and mainstreamenvironmental

press coverage of each administration, and the concurrent public opinion polls and

Congressional action. Such documentation could help scholarsgauge the patterns of

national environmental rhetoric, interest, and action during thepast 30 years.

In addition, the frames used and frame patterns identified in thisstudy might

also be applied to other public policy issues relating toscience. For example, if one examined the national discourse about terrorism and bioterrorism,one might find naïve optimism in the days and weeks following September 11 and/or calls for thenation to unite in the effort. News pieces might start covering the topic ina broad way, speaking with lots of different sources, until the governmentfrom the federallevel to the state, county, and local levelsbecame organized to address these issues, at whichtime the use of government sources might prevail. And perhaps there looms the "economyvs. the war on terror" debate, which might pit the costs of governmentactivities against their impacts on the travel and tourism industries and national socialprograms. As the war drags on, we are likely to see the political wrangling and "political football" rhetoric employed by Congress and the G.O.P., especially if resultsare perceived by the public as lagging.

Knowing the tendencies of administrations, journalists, and the public whennew initiatives are undertaken could help communicators both anticipate and guardagainst ineffectual and unrealistic textual frames that stymie, rather than stimulate,public understanding and debate.

167 ENDNOTES

1 Oil and debris combined to create a fire in Cleveland, Ohio's, Cuyahoga River in 1969. InCraig Waddell, "Saving the Great Lakes: Public Participation in EnvironmentalPolicy," Carl G. Hemdl and Stuart C. Brown (eds.), Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric inContemporary America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), 145.

2 President Lyndon Johnson had leased the federal area to oil companies in lieu of raising taxes to help finance the Vietnam War.

3 Richard N.L Andrews, Managing the Environment; Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 227.

4 Bruce J. Schulman, Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism: A Brief Biographywith Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, 1995), 92.

5 Andrews, Managing the Environment; 226.

6 Andrews, Managing the Environment, 227.

' Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds., "Environmental Policy from the 1970s in 2000:An Overview" in Environmental Policy, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press,2000), 11.

8 James S. Bowman and Kathryn Hanaford, "Mass Media and the EnvironmentSince Earth Day," Journalism Quarterty(Spring 1977): 160.

9 According to Herbert Gans, the magazine initially planned to start a dty section, but wasbeaten to it by Newsweek therefore, an environment section wasstarted instead (in Herbert J. Gans, Deciding What's News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC NightlyNews, Newsweek and Time. (New York: Vintage Books, 1980), 166.

Time, 4 January 1971, 21-22; William A. Babcock, "EnvironmentalPollution Coverage in Newsweek from 1969 through 1975," Southern Illinois University,unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1980.

11 Bruce A. William and Albert R. Matheny, Demoaacy, Dialogue, and EnvironmentalDisputes: The Contested Languages of Social Regulation (New Haven, CT:Yale University Press, 1995), 28; Douglas Torgerson, The Promise of Green Environmentalism and the Public Sphere (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999).

12 M. C. McGee, "In search of 'the people': A rhetorical alternative" in Quarterly Journal of Speech, quoted in Deluca, Kevin Michael, Image Politics: The NewRhetoric of Environmental Activism (New York: Guilford Press, 1999). Although scholars differ intheir definitions of sodal movements per se, if we apply the Webster's New World CollegeDicfionaiy(New York: Macmillan, 1997) definition of "movement," it is dear that environmentalismfits the criteria. For example, some of the Webster's definitions indude "a) a series oforganized activities by people working concertedly toward some goal b) the organization consistingof those active in this way c) a tendency or trend in some particular sphere of activity."

13 Kevin Michael Deluca, Image Politics: The New Rhetoric of Emlionmental Aclitism(New York: Guilford Press, 1999), 36.

14 Water Uppmann, Public Opinion (New York: Macmillian, 1922).

1 6 $ 15 John W. IGngdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Polices (2nd ed.) (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 69.

16 Ibid.

17 Norman J. Vig, "Presidential Leadership and the Environment: From Reagan to Clinton" in Environmental Policy, 99.

18 Attributed to Stuart Eizenstat in Ibid.

19 Jeffrey E. Cohen, "The Dynamics and Interactions Between the President's and the Public's avil Rights Agendas: A Study in Presidential Leadership and Representation," Policy Studies Journal21 (Autumn 1993): 514-522.

20 Harold G. Zucker, "The Variable Nature of News Media Influence," quoted in Joe Bob Hester and William J. Gonzenbach, "The Environment: TV News, Real-World Cues, and Public Opinion over Time," Mass Comm Review 22 (1995): 10.

21 See Tony Atwater, Michael Salwen, and Ronald Anderson, "Media Agenda-Setting with Environmental Issues," Journalism Quarterly49: 393-397; Shanto Iyengar and Donald IGnder, News that Matters: Television and American Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); Hans-Bemd Brosius and Hans Mathias Kepplinger, "The Agenda-Setting Function of Television News: Static and Dynamic Views," Communication Research 17: 183-211 for agenda- setting effects, and David Protess, Fay Cook, Thomas Curtin, Margaret Gordon et al, "The Impact of Investigative Reporting on Public Opinion and Policy-Making: Targeting Toxic Waste," Public Opinion Quarterly 51, no. 2: 166-185.

22 M. McCombs, J.P. Llamas, E. Lopez-Escobar, and F. Rey, "Candidate Images in Spanish Elections: Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarter/y74 (1997): 703-717.

23 For early framing research, see Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1974), and Gay Tuchman, Managing News: A Case Study in the Construction of Reality(New York: The Free Press, 1978), 1.

24 William Gamson, "News as Framing," American Behavioral Sdentist35: 157-161.

25 Murray Edelman, "Contestable Categories and Public Opinion," Political Communication 10: 231-242.

26 Thomas Nelson, Rosalee Clawson and Zoe Oxley, "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Silence Review 91 (September 1997): 567-568.

27 Dietram Scheufele, "Framing as a Theory of Media Effects," Journal of Communication 49 (Winter 1999): 116.

28 See H.A. Semetkko and A. Mandelli, "Setting the Agenda for Cross-National Research: Bringing Values into the Concept." In M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw and D. Weaver, eds., Communication and Democracy(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, 1997).

29 Alison Anderson, Media, Culture and the Environment (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), 135.

169 30Catherine A. Collins and Susan R. Kephart, "Science as news: The emergenceand framing of biodiversity," Mass Comm Review 22 (1995): 21-46.

31 The issue was mountaintop removal, a coal mining method.

32 Todd Gitlin, The Whole World Is Watching (Berkeley: University of California Press,1980).

33 An inherent problem with this method was that the frames were not always mutuallyexdusive: sometimes the same text could fit more than one category. (Forexample, a single sentence might refer both to the economy v. environment in an internationalcontext.) In these cases, the predominant frame was selected. The complete list of textual frames ascategorized from the text is available by contacting the author.

34 William Babcock, "Environmental Pollution Coverage in Newsweek from 1969 through 1975," 115. Said Babcock, "This newsmagazine viewed environmentalpollution basically as a rather short-term 'springtime sldpalong."'

35 Gal/up Opinion Index Report No. 55 (January 1970). Providence, NJ, 20, 24.

36 Gal/up Opinion Indec Report No. 56 (February 1970). Providence, NJ, 5.

37 Gal/up Opinion Indav Report No. 60 (June 1970). Providence, NJ, 8.

38 Gallup Opinion Index Report No. 61 (July 1970). Providence, NJ, 14, 13, 3, respectively.

39 Gallup Opinion Indec Report No. 65 (November 1970). Providence, NJ, 5, 27,respectively.

4° "The President's News Conference of January 30, 1970," Public Papas of the Presidentsof the United States. Richard Nixon, 1970. (Washington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1971).

41 "The President's News Conference of July 20, 1970," Ibid.

42 "The President's News Conference of December 10, 1970, Ibid

43 Wayne Wanta and Joe Foote, "The President-News Media Relationship," 437.

44 "A letter from the Publisher," Time, 1 August, 1969, 3.

45 See Shanto Iyengar, Is Anyone Responsible?(Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1991).

46 For more information about government sources, see M. Mark Miller and Bonnie Parnell Riechert, "Interest Group Strategies and Journalistic Norm: News MediaFraming of Environmental Issues" in S. Allan, B. Adam and C. Carter, eds., EnvironmentalRisks and the Media (New York: Routledge, 2000), 51.

47 Robert M. Entman, "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm." Journalof Communication 43 (1993): 52.

" Michael Karlberg, "News and Conflicts: How Adversarial News Frames Limit Public Understanding of Environmental Issues," Alternatives Journal 23 (1997): 22-28.These frames arise through language that discounts or dismisses the issues as notbeing serious; uses government sources and statements frequently as evidence of the mainstream versus oppositional views on the matter; focuses on internal conflicts among those involved inthe

170 movement; and discounts those involved and what they say as radical, extreme, or on the fringes of society.

49 Robert Gottlieb, "An Odd Assortment of Allies: American Environmentalism in the 1990s" in Craig L La May and Everette E. Dennis, eds.,Media and theEnvironment(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991), 47.

5° This ambiguity became evident when a colleague categorized 20 percent of the speeches and columns, selected at random, and after minimal instruction, achieved only 40 percent agreement with the author.

51 Downs' first and fifth stages are "pre-problem" and "post-problem." From A. Downs, "Up and down with ecologythe 'issue attention cyde," Public Interest 28 (1972), 38-50. Appendix A 1970 Nixon speeches reviewed

1.Remarks on Signing the National Environmental Policy Actof 1969, January 1 2. Statement about the National Environmental Policy Actof 1969, January 1 3. Annual Message to the Congress on the State ofthe Union, January 22 4.Remarks Announcing Nominees to the Council on EnvironmentalQuality, January 29 5. Statement about the Council on Environmental Quality,January 29 6.Statement on Signing an Executive Order for the Controlof Air and Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4 7.Remarks on Receiving the Boy Scouts' Annual Report to theNation, February 5 8. Remarks Prior to an Inspection Tour of the HanoverSewage Treatment Facility, February 6 9.Remarks Following a Meeting of the Cabinet Committee onthe Environment and the Council on Environmental Quality in Chicago, Illinois,February 6 10. Remarks on Transmitting a Special Message to theCongress on Environmental Quality, February 10 11. Special Message to the Congress on EnvironmentalQuality, February 10 12. Remarks on Presenting the National Medal of Science,February 16 13. First Annual Report to the Congress on United StatesForeign Policy for the 1970's, February 18 14. Remarks at the National Governors' Conference WinterSession, February 25* 15. Statement on Establishing the National IndustrialPollution Control Council, April 9 16. Special Message to the Congress about Waste Disposal,April 15* 17. Special Message to the Congress Urging Legislation ToAvoid Further Pollution in the Santa Barbara Channel, June 11 18. Special Message to the Congress about ReorganizationPlans To Establish the Environmental Protection Agency and the National oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, July 9 19. Message to the Congress Transmitting ReorganizationPlan 3 of 1970: Environmental Protection Agency, July 9 20. Remarks of Welcome to President Urho Kekkonenof the Republic of Finland, July 23 21. The President's News Conference of July 30 22. Message to the Congress Transmitting the Annual Report onthe National Wilderness Preservation System, August 5 23. Message to the Congress Transmitting the First AnnualReport of the Coundl on Environmental Quality, August 10 24. Remarks on Inscribing a Copy of the Report of theCoundl on Environmental Quality for the Council Staff, August 10* 25. Statement in Support of Republican Candidates in Wisconsin,October 17 26. Remarks in Kansas City, Missouri, October 19 27. Remarks at East Tennessee State University, October20 28. Statement in Support of Republican Candidates in NorthCarolina, October 20 29. Remarks in Fort Wayne, Indiana, October 20 30. Remarks in St. Petersburg, Florida, October 28 31. Remarks at Longview, Texas, October 28* 32. Remarks at the Swearing In of William D..Ruckelshaus asAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, December 4

172 33. The President's News Conference of December 10 34. Statement on Signing Executive Order Establishing a Water Quality Enforcement Program, December 23 35. Remarks on Signing the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, December 31

* No mentions of the environment in the president's public statements in March, May, September, or November.

173 Appendix B

1970 Time issues in which the Environment Section appeared

January 5 January 12 January 19 January 26 February 2 February 9 February 16 February 23 March 16 (no section in either March 2 or 9 issues) March 23 (no March 30 section) April 6 April 13 (no April 20 section) April 27 May 4 May 11 May 18 May 25 June 1 June 8 June 15 June 22 (no June 29 section) July 6 July 13 July 20 July 27 (August 3 environmental section pages missing) August 10 (no August 17 section) August 24 August 31 (no September 7 section) September 14 (no September 21 section) September 28 October 5 October 12 October 19 (no October 26 section) November 2 November 9 (no November 16 section) November 23 November 30 (no December 7 section) December 14 December 21 December 28

174 Running head: SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.

SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

Terence (Terry) Flynn Doctoral StudentMass Communication Program S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications Syracuse University

548 Clarendon St. Syracuse, NY 13210 (315) 477-9898 (voice mail) E-mail: [email protected]

A Top Student Paper

Presented to the Science Communication Interest Group of The Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Miami, Florida August, 2000

175 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine how environmental journalists rate the credibility of environmental groups as sources of information on the global warming debate. A self-administered survey questionnaire, based on the Meyer's Credibility

Index, and a quantitative content analysis, was used to test the credibility and coverage of environmental groups involved in the global warming debate over the last two years.

176 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.

Environmental interest groups have been sounding the warning bells for more than 30 years about the potentially devastating effects of global warming. From ozone depletion to the melting of the polar ice caps to irreversible climatic changes, interest groups compete to have their positions and warnings covered by the media. One group warns that the hole in the ozone layer will cause a catastrophic increase in skin cancer rates. Another group claims that the increase in the average temperature will cause an increase in the melting rate of the polar ice cap causing the oceans levels to rise, thereby flooding all coastal cities. Still another calls for the complete ban on all organic chemicals in order to safeguard the environment. While governments and international organizations continue to provide the public with information on the current state of the science, the ongoing coverage of interest groups' positions differs widely among the media.

At times, the issue seems overly complex and almost too difficult for most news consumers to easily digest. According to Trumbo (1996), global warming is an intangible issue that is difficult to explain to the average citizen: because of this intangibility and the competing voices in the debate, the public is generally misinformed about the issue. This in spite of the volumes of information and data that have been generated over the last 30 years by the divergent interest groups supporting or denouncing the claim that the earth is at risk. As Corbett (1998b) stated:

Because of the concern for the environment, thousands of groups and individuals in the U.S. attempt to speak for and about the environment, particularly through the mass media. Politicians, environmental groups, scientists, and corporations all must compete daily for space on the environmental bandwagon (p. 222).

177 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.

Environmental groups face enormous challenges as they continue to work to assemble and disseminate their facts on the environmental impact of global warming

(Edwards, 1998). Ongoing research continues to show that the news media seek out groups or sources that have established credentials, understand the news production norms, are known to the public, and have the resources to continually meet the media's information needs (Ryan, Carrage, & Schwerner, 1998). According to Stempel and

Culbertson (1984), "a source's assertiveness, credibility, accessibility, and quotability can affect both a source's prominence and dominance in news coverage" (p. 675).

Furthermore, Counts (1975) found that what reporters emphasized in a story was in part due to how "credible they found the source and whether they agreed with the source's message" (p.118).

Given that "most Americans know what they know about the environment from watching television news and reading newspapers" (Salomone, Greenberg, Sandman &

Sachsman, 1990, p. 117), and furthermore, that much of what most people discuss about global warming comes from the media, it is important for us to learn more about how the media brings environmental information to the public (Shanahan, Morgan, & Stenbjerre,

1997; Archibald, 1999). The purpose of this study is to use both survey research and content analysis to understand how credible the media perceive environmental groups involved in the global climate debate and the likelihood of using those sources in their reporting.

178 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS.

THEORY

For environmental groups, maintaining public interest in complex issues such as

global warming is the key to the survival of the issue and ultimately the groups

themselves (McComas & Shanahan, 1999). However, keeping the issue in the public

domain takes time, resources, and a keen understanding of how the media affect the

public agenda. In this period of media saturation and information overload, the challenge

for environmental groups is that the public, the media, and the politicians have little

tolerance for exaggerated claims and publicity stunts. The key to achieving public

interest is to find the means of interesting the public in the issue. Accordingly, it is

crucial that environmental groups find the right communication vehicles to have their

voices heard as a means of defining and acting upon social problems (Kielbowicz &

Scherer, 1986). "Media coverage can greatly influence the nature, development, and

ultimate success" of an environmental issue (Corbett, 1998a, p. 41). According to Ball-

Rokeach, Power, Guthrie, and Waring (1990), environmental groups need the media

more than the media need them, especially with political issues such as global warming.

Even with the explosion of the Internet, a more direct method of communicating with

environmental stakeholders and policy makers, the mass media remain "the primary link between the public and the political system" (p. 254).

Gatekeeping

Sources, interest groups, and extra-media social institutions: These are just a few of the forces that scholars have studied over the last 55 years, in an effort to understand

"the process by which the vast array of potential news messages are winnowed, shaped,

179 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 6 and prodded into those few that are actually transmitted by the news media" (Shoemaker,

Eichholz, Kim, & Wrigley, 2001, p. 233). The study of how media messages are developed and distributed (Donohue, Tichenor, & Olien, 1972) has been likened to a gate whereby the media determine who and what get in and alternatively, who and what doesn't get in. According to Shoemaker et al., (2001), this gatekeeping function of the media either enables or constrains a group's ability to get its message into the public arena. The social reality that begins to be constructed must obviously start with a source of information that has the ability of providing content and context for journalists as they develop or report on an issue such as global warming.

The media are a powerful and important force within society. Some scholars have called the media the main source of information and knowledge (Rogers, 1996), others see them as agents of social control (Shoemaker, 1984), while others view them as the champion of social problems (Yanovitzky & Bennett, 1999). Overall, the media are in a pivotal place to prompt social change either through helping to set the political agenda or by keeping issues and groups out of the public discussion. Because the media are the channels through which information from environmental groups will pass to their key audiences, it is essential that they become a recognized and dependable force in promoting their views on the issue of global warming. According to Shoemaker (1991), interest groups can do this by becoming a force in the gatekeeping process; providing information and messages as a regular part of the media routine and as a result becoming a credible source of ongoing information for the media.

It is a competitive process where sources representing different interests and different agendas attempt to influence the flow of information through the channel. Those

ISO SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARiMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. groups that understand the routines of the media, have the ability to provide credible information about a given issue on a timely basis, and are available to produce commentary or analysis, have the opportunity of successfully attaining "newsworthy status" (Roscho, 1975). According to Donohue, Tichenor and Olien (1995), while the media flex their muscles as the news gatekeepers, they are fundamentally dependent on the dominant institutions of society, and their opponents, to make them aware of potentially newsworthy issues. As such, "both sources and gatekeepers benefit from their mutual relationship, with the source getting access to target audiences through the mass media and gatekeepers getting access to someone who can regularly provide credible information" (Shoemaker, 1991, p. 61).

In order for environmental groups to attain "newsworthy status" they must understand the influences and forces that determine the flow of information through the gates of the media. For Sachsman, Sandman, Greenberg, & Salomon (1988), the benefits are clear:

Environmental news sources that empathize with journalists and are willing to teach reporters about their specific fields can help make mass media coverage of environmental risk as accurate and professional as the American public deserves (pp. 295-296).

Sources

Recent studies have shown that reporters, especially those with a specialization like environmental journalism, have more autonomy in deciding how to cover a story and which sources to use (Mazur & Lee, 1993; Powers & Fico, 1994; Detjen, Fico, Li, &

Kim, 2000). As Gans (1979) stated: "sources are the actors whom journalists observe or interview, including interviewees who appear on air or who are quoted" (p. 80). Sources

1 81 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 8 provide information to reporters about an issue that, according to Shoemaker and Reese

(1996), is easy to use and does not consume unnecessary or unavailable resources.

Within the global warming debate there are many potential sources that the news media could use to explain, defend or critique a position. The most common are representatives of the sponsoring agency, which in many cases is either a political or a government source, associated with the policy initiative. According to Paletz and Entman (1981), journalists prefer government sources because they are usually available, have something

"official" to say, and also understand the routines and pressures of the news production cycle. Furthermore, government sources create a regular stream of "authoritative information that reporters find efficient compared with more labor-intensive research"

(Shoemaker & Reese, 1996, p. 130).

In a study of journalists sources of environmental data, 51 per cent of reporters surveyed listed government officials, press releases, and reports as their first source of information, while 25 per cent listed environmental activist groups (Curtin &

Rhodenbaugh, 2001, p. 180). While government sources are the preferred means of acquiring information, research indicates that source credibility, accessibility, prominence, knowledge, and deadline pressure ultimately influences the selection of specific sources (Shoemaker, 1991; Powers & Fico, 1994; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996;

Curtin & Rhodenbaugh, 2001).

The skill and savvy of environmental groups have obviously increased over the last 30 years since the days when they were informal, citizen groups with limited resources and a lack of understanding of how the media machine operated. While there are still smaller environmental advocacy groups that continue to employ episodic "photo-

182 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 9 op" stunts to gain the media's attention, the majority of environmental groups engaged in the global warming debate have institutionalized their news media relationships and have, on occasion, successfully embedded themselves within the journalistic routine.The question remains however, what makes one environmental group more successful in being used as a source over others in the same debate?

Many journalists want a credible source to comment on a specific issue.

Nevertheless, how do they define a credible source? Is it someone who is seen to be unbiased? Is it someone who is known to have certain credentials or holds a specific position of authority? Is it as Ryan, Carrage, and Schwerner (1998) define it "as a group cited in the lead paragraph, as an indication that perhaps it has established credibility as a routine news source" (p. 178)? Finally, is it, as Hovland and Weiss (1953) stated nearly

50 years ago, the group's expertise and trustworthiness?

Credibility

A growing body of communication research has begun to look at the importance of source credibility in the risk communication process. McComas and Trumbo (2001) have taken a traditional mass communication approach and applied it to a series of specific channels and contexts as a means of understanding who or which group has more perceived credibility. Their goal was to develop a method to examine the overall credibility of stakeholders involved in an environmental controversy, ultimately using it as a means to improve or change the method of communication among the stakeholder groups. After an exhaustive review of a series of scales that had been used to measure trust and credibility, McComas and Trumbo settled on an index that was first used nearly

183 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 10 15 years ago to define and measure the credibility of newspapers. The Meyer's

Credibility Index (Meyer, 1988) uses five variables that produce strong reliability and

face validity in assessing the credibility of a specific "communication source." While a

more thorough discussion of the index takes place in themethods section of this paper,

the five variables that produced the strongest reliability are whether the source: is fair;

unbiased; tells the whole story; is accurate; and finally, can be trusted (pp. 469-470).

Understanding the factors that establish source credibility is critical to an

environmental group's ability to become and remain a source for journalists covering

environmental issues. As McComas and Trumbo stated: "measuring the believability

(credibility) of the source could significantly advance efforts to understand and ultimately

improve the process of environmental health and risk communication" (pp. 467-468).

There is limited research on how reporters chose their sources and how sources

become "credible sources." As such, this paper is an attempt to extend one element of the

gatekeeping theory, namely the use of sources, in an effort to better understand this

dynamic and interactive process.

HYPOTHESES

The purpose of this study is to determine how environmental journalists rate the

credibility of environmental groups as sources of information on the global warming

debate. Furthermore, whether that credibility is evident in the number of stories that the

credible environmental groups are used as sources by the reporters. Finally, does the

184 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 11 likeliness of using an environmental group as a source translates into increased media coverage for the group.

Hl: The higher that environmental journalists rate an environmental interest group's credibility on the Meyer's Credibility Index, the more likely they will used as a source. According to Shoemaker (1991), the credibility of an interest group,

determined by the group's ability to provide information and messages as part of

the news media routine, can result in the group becoming a regular source for the

media. To test this hypothesis, journalists were asked to rate all 20 environmental

groups on the five component questions of the Meyer's Credibility Index, thereby

measuring trust, accuracy, fairness, completeness, and bias of each group.

Furthermore, the journalists were asked to assess their likeliness of using each

particular environmental group as a source of information on the issue of global

warming and climate change.

112: The higher the Meyer's Credibility score that an environmental interest group achieves, the more media coverage the environmental group will receive.

As Corbett (1998a) stated, the amount of media coverage that an issue

receives can virtually determine the success or failure of the issue. Therefore, an

important goal for environmental groups supporting a specific issue is to get their

message covered by the media. In order to measure the amount of coverage, a

Coverage Index was established using three dependent variables as the basis for

185 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSISOF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 12 the index: total number of articles; total number of paragraphs on the identified

environmental group in the articles; and, the number of overall mentions of the

environmental group in the articles. To test H2, the Coverage Index was

compared to the mean scores that each environmental group received on the

Credibility Index.

H3: The more likely that a reporter will use an environmental group as a source the more media coverage the environmental groupwill receive.

Is perception reality? Does a journalist's awareness of an environmental

group, as measured by the likeliness of using that group as a source,result in the

amount of coverage that an environmental group receives on a specific issue?

This hypothesis was tested by comparing the likeliness of source usage scores to

the actual amount of coverage that the group received, as measured by the

Coverage Index.

METHOD

A self-administered survey questionnaire and a quantitative content analysis was used to test the credibility and coverage of environmental groups involved in the global warming debate over the last two years. A convenience sample of 20 environmental interest groups was selected on the assumption that the groups varied in credibility. For the purposes of this study, I have accepted Shoemaker and Reese's (1996) definition of an interest group as, "composed of individuals who want to communicatetheir stance on

one or more issues to the public" (p. 184). The groups selected include: theNational

186 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 13 Environmental Trust; the Sierra Club; Greenpeace; the Natural Resources Defense

Council; Public Citizen; the World Wildlife Fund; the Climate Action Network; the

Center on Global Climate Change; the Suzuki Foundation; Kyoto Now!; Ozone Action;

Cool the Planet; Climate Voice the Greenhouse Network; the Environmental Defense

Fund; Friends of the Earth; the Union of Concerned Scientists; the Earth Liberation

Front; Conservation International; and the Audubon Society.

The self-administered survey questionnaire was mailed to all environmental newspaper reporters (N=225), who are members of the Society of Environmental

Journalists and reside in the United States. The Society of Environmental Journalists, which has a total membership of more than 1,000 newspaper, television, radio and freelance journalists and academics, is "a professional, educational organization developed to provide journalists of all media who face the challenging responsibility of covering complex environmental issues" a forum for support and information sharing.1

The environmental newspaper reporters were asked to rate the credibility of the

different environmental groups using the Meyer's Credibility Index (Appendix A). The

Meyer's Credibility Index is a five-item index that measures trust, accuracy, fairness,

honesty, and bias. Each question is based on a 5-point bipolar scale and the cumulative

scores provide a ranking of credibility. The environmental reporters were also asked to

rate the likeliness of using the different environmental groups as sources for stories on

global warming and climate change. A separate 5-point bipolar scale question ("On the

issue of global warming, how likely would you use an environmental group as a

' A description of the history and mission of the Society of Environmental Journalists is available at www.sej.org 187 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 14 source?") was used to measure the likeliness of use as a source for environmental journalists.

Using the environmental group as the unit of analysis, a Lexis-Nexis keyword search was conducted for the content analysis using the phrases global warming, climate change, and environmental groups between February 2000 and February 2002. The search resulted in 608 newspaper stories that included the key phrases. All articles published in international newspapers were removed leaving a total population of 356 daily newspaper articles. Finally, all editorials and letters-to-the-editor were removed leaving a total sample of 212 articles from 27 national and regional newspapers2 that were then analyzed by the author.

To establish intercoder reliability, two coders (the author and a trained second coder) analyzed a small sample of articles (15 per cent of the overall sample, N=30).

News stories, features, and news analyses were coded according to a codebook developed for this study. Items appearing on the editorials, opinion columns, and letters-to-the- editor were not coded. Identifiable environmental groups were coded in every applicable paragraph of every article. A source was identified as a group that had a statement attributed to it about the global warming issue. The overall length of the article was coded according to the number of paragraphs in the news article. Intercoder reliability was calculated for each variable using Holsti's coefficient of reliability (CR) and Scott's pi.

2 Denver Rocky Mountain News, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Houston Chronicle, Newsday, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Seattle Times, Hartford Courant, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, New Orleans Times Picayune, San Francisco Chronicle, Columbus Dispatch, LA Times, St. Petersburg Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, New York Daily News, Omaha World Herald. USA Today, San Diego Union Tribune. Baltimore Sun, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Denver Post, Chicago Sun-Times. Boston Herald, Buffalo News

188 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 15 Average results for the pre-test coding of the three coveragevariables were CR = .92 and

Scott's pi = .873

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

A total of 28 surveys were returned resulting in an overall response rate of 12 per cent. Sixty-eight per cent were males and 32 per cent were females. The average ageof the respondents was 45 years of age (SD = 11.39), with an average of 18.5 years (SD =

11.07) working as a journalist. Thirty-six per cent reported that they were

"environmental" reporters while a further 25 per cent considered themselves general news reporters. Fully 39 per cent of all respondents have been coveringthe environmental beat for 15 or more years while 29 per cent reported covering environmental issues for 6 to 10 years, and 32 per cent have covered the environment for five or fewer years. While 43 per cent of the respondents said that they attended journalism school, 68 per cent said that they did not take any environmental course during their formal education.

When asked whether they had written a story about global warming or climate change, 61 per cent responded that they had written a story about the issue during the last

12 months. Fifty-four per cent of the respondents said that they did use an environmental group as a source of information on global warming or climate change over the last year.

An average of 88 per cent of respondents reported that they did not know five of the twenty environmental groups. As a result, Kyoto Now, Ozone Action, Cool the

3 Pre-test intercoder reliability results were: total number of paragraphs, CR = .96, Scott's pi = .92; number of paragraphs on the identified environmental group, CR = .88, Scott's pi = .81; number of overall mentions of the identified environmental group in the article, CR = .93, Scott's pi --- 89.

189 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 16 Planet, Climate Voice, and the Greenhouse Network were eliminated from the final analysis due to lack of overall knowledge of the groups as reported by the respondents.

The remaining 15 environmental groups4 were included in the final analysis.

Hypothesis Tests

Tables 1 through 3 show the means and standard deviations for the dependent variables (credibility, likeliness of use as a source, and media coverage). The first hypothesis examined the relationship between a reporter's rating of the environmental group's credibility and the likeliness of using that environmental group as a source of information on global warming or climate change. As seen in Table 4, the hypothesis was supported using a Pearson correlation (N=15) between the Credibility Index variables and the likeliness of usage as a source variable (r = .91, p < .01).

The likeliness of use as a source variable showed a significant correlation between each of the five credibility variables, trust (r = .92, p < .01), accuracy (r = .87, p < .01), fairness (r = .92, p < .01), completeness (r = .87, p < .01), and bias (r = .83, p < .01) as seen in Table 4.

Hypothesis 2 explored the relationship between an environmental group's credibility and coverage of the group by the media. This hypothesis was not supported as measured by the relationship between the environmental groups' score on the Credibility

Index and the environmental groups' aggregate amount of coverage, as measured by the

Coverage Index (r = -.12). While reporters ranked Conservation International as the most

4 Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club, Clean Air Trust, Audubon Society, Conservation International, Center on Global Climate Change, World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, Climate Action Network, Greenpeace, National Environmental Trust, and Earth Liberation Front. 190 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 17 credible (M = 3.82, SD = .904) among all the groups, as seen in Table 1, Conservation

International received the lowest score on the Coverage Index as reported in Table 2. In fact, in all 212 articles Conservation International garnered only two mentions of its name and no direct quotations of its spokespeople. On the other hand, the Sierra Club received the most coverage (Coverage Index = 155) but ranked only 10th on the Credibility Index

(M = 3.19, SD = .701). Similarly, Greenpeace ranked second in coverage (Coverage

Index = 102.8) but second last in credibility (M = 2.51, SD = .942).

The final hypothesis looked at the relationship between a reporter's likeliness of using an environmental group as a source and the amount of coverage that the group received. This hypothesis was also not supported using a Pearson correlation (N=15) between the likeliness of use as source variable and the coverage variable (r = .09). In

Table 3 we can once again see that those groups that received the most coverage, the

Sierra Club and Greenpeace also ranked 4th and 13th respectively, in the likeliness of use as a source as seen in Table 4. The Natural Resource Defense Council was most likely to be used as a source (M = 4.11, SD = .751) followed by the Environmental Defense Fund

(M = 3.88, SD = .864), and the Union of Concerned Scientists (M = 3.85, SD = 1.10). In terms of coverage, the Natural Resource Defense Council ranked 4th (Coverage Index =

58.4), the Environmental Defense Fund ranked 5th (Coverage Index = 38.9), and the

Union of Concerned Scientists ranked 10th (Coverage Index = 14.8).

191 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 18 DISCUSSION

This study examined the relationship between source credibility, likeliness of use as a source, and overall media coverage of environmental groupsinvolved in the global warming and climate change debate. While the initial response rate by environmental reporters to the survey was low, the results do provide empirical evidence that a relationship exists between how credible a source is perceived by environmental newspaper reporters and the likeliness of the source being used by the reporters. These findings suggest that source credibility does have an influence on the perceived selection of sources by the media as Shoemaker (1991) and Shoemaker and Reese (1996)

suggested. While the results point to a strong empirical relationship, the overall findings of the study suggest that this relationship may be more ideal than real.

The fact that those environmental groups that received the most coverage, the

Sierra Club and Greenpeace, were ranked in the bottom third of credibility suggests that reporters and media institutions use other variables to determine who and what gets

covered. Furthermore, while previous research suggested that environmental reporters have more autonomy in selecting sources (Mazur & Lee, 1993; Powers & Fico, 1994;

Detjen, Fico, Li, & Kim, 2000), these results suggest otherwise. Much like the findings

of source credibility, the reporter's likeliness of using a source in covering the global

warming and climate change debate did not translate into higher scores on the Coverage

Index for those groups. Once again, while the Sierra Club and Greenpeace topped the

coverage charts reporters put them in 4th and13th place respectively, in the likeliness of

using these groups as a source of information.

192 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSISOF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 19 If it is not the credibility of the environmental group or the likeliness of using the groups as sources that determine media coverage, thenwhat other variables could help explain why some groups garner far greater coverage than others? The answer may liein the structure and routines of those that achieved the greatest coverage. Both the Sierra

Club and Greenpeace, while different in their tactical approaches to environmental issues, could be described as highly structured environmental groups. Therefore, both groups would fit Shoemaker's (1991) description as a force in the gatekeeping process; providing information and messages as a regular part of the media routine. While they may not be perceived as credible and not the most preferred sourceused by those journalists that responded to the survey, they were very successful in getting their messages covered in the articles that were analyzed forthis study.

The structure and ability of the environmental group to garner coverage may also explain why five of the groups did not receive any coverage in the 212 articles or any responses from the surveyed journalists. These groups could be considered less structured and have fewer resources to influence the media routines and, as a result, are unable to compete with the more dominant environmental groups for coverage

(Kielbowicz & Scherer, 1986).

The use of the Meyer's Credibility Index brings the measurement of trust, accuracy, fairness completeness, and bias in the mass media almost full circle.When

Meyers first developed the instrument in the mid 1980s, its purpose was to measure the credibility of the media in covering local issues. More recently, McComas and Trumbo

(2001) used the Credibility Index to examine the credibility of parties involved in a number of risk communication controversies. The use of the Credibility Index in this

193 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 20 study appears to be the first empirical attempt at measuring environmental reporters' perceptions of environmental groups on these five credibility variables.

Limitations and Future Research

The findings from this study are limited by the low response rate to the self- administered survey questionnaire. Furthermore, while there may be some overlap between those environmental reporters whose articles were analyzed in the content analysis and those reporters who were surveyed as members of the Society of

Environmental Journalists, this study did not set out to purposely measure specific reporters' perceptions of source credibility and their use of sources in actual newspaper coverage. Further studies on how reporters determine the credibility of sources and the

likeliness of using those sources measured by actual analysis of the reporters published

stories, would strengthen this line of research.

194 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 21

Table 1. Means (and standard deviations) for indicators of source credibility by environmental group.

GROUP Trust' Accuracy2Fairness3 Completeness4Bias5 Meyer's Credibility Index6 Conservation 4.07 4.07 4.07 3.69 3.07 3.82 International (.917) (.917) (.954) (1.11) (1.33) (.904) N=14 N=14 N=13 N=13 N=14 N=13 Union of 4.03 4.15 3.81 3.77 3.23 3.80 Concerned (.916) (.834) (.938) (1.03) (1.07) (.849) Scientists N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 Audubon 4.04 4.07 3.89 3.59 3.15 3.75 Society (.854) (.781) (1.01) (1.01) (1.13) (.805) N=27 N=27 N=27 N=27 N=27 N=27 Environmental4.00 4.04 3.88 3.42 3.04 3.68 Defense Fund (.693) (.720) (.766) (.902) (1.08) (.693) N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 Center on 4.00 3.91 3.81 3.36 3.27 3.67n Global (.633) (.539) (.603) (.809) (.905) (.531) Climate N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11 Change N=11

Natural 4.04 4.00 3.81 3.33 2.74 3.59 Resources (.759) (.734) (1.20) (.708) Defense N=27 N=27 N=27 N=27 N=27 Council N=27 Clean Air 3.78 3.44 3.56 3.22 3.00 3.40 Trust (.667) (.527) (.727) (.972) (1.12) (.648) N=9 N=9 N=9 N=9 N=9 N=9 World 3.78 3.74 3.52 3.22 2.61 3.37 Wildlife Fund (.736) (.689) (.665) (.851) (.988) (.598) N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23 N=23 Climate 3.36 3.55 3.27 3.18 3.09 3.29 Action (.809) (.522) (.904) (.874) (.944) (.653) Network N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11 N=11 Sierra Club 3.69 3.69 3.62 2.69 2.27 3.19 (.928) (.679) (.804) (.928) (1.11) (.701) N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26

ID 5 lEST COPY AVAILABLE SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 22 Table 1. Means (and standard deviations) for indicators of source credibility by environmental group (continued).

GROUP Trust' Accuracy?Fairness3 Completeness` Bias5 Meyer's Credibility Index6 Public Citizen 3.31 3.54 3.31 3.00 2.62 3.15 (.630) (.660) (.751) (.853) (.961) (.661) N=13 N=13 N=13 N=12 N=13 N=12 Friends of the 3.30 3.35 3.15 2.95 2.45 3.04 Earth (.979) (.933) (.933) (.945) (.945) (.778) N=20 N=20 N=20 N=20 N=20 N=20 National 3.50 3.71 3.29 2.57 1.75 2.97 Environmental(.535) (.488) (.756) (.535) (.463) (.439) Trust N=8 N=7 N=7 N=7 N=7 N=7 Greenpeace 2.81 2.88 2.73 2.27 1.85 2.51 (1.17) (1.11) (1.04) (1.08) (.967) (.942) N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 N=26 Earth 1.58 1.74 1.63 1.26 1.21 1.48 Liberation (.693) (.991) (1.01) (.562) (.535) (.637) Front N=19 N=19 N=19 N=19 N=19 N=19

Responses were coded 1 = Can't be trusted to 5 = Can be trusted. 2 Responses were coded 1 = Is inaccurate to 5 = Is accurate. 3 Responses were coded 1 = Is unfair to 5 = Is fair. 4 Responses were coded 1 = Doesn't tell the whole story to 5 = Tells the whole story. 5 Responses were coded 1 = Is biased to 5 = Is unbiased. 6 Average of the above 5 variables, Cronbach's alpha range = .80 to .93

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 196 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 23 Table 2. Means and Standard Deviation for likeliness of use as source.

GROUP Mean Standard Number of Deviation articles

Natural Resources Defense Council* 4.11 .751 27

Environmental Defense Fund 3.88 .864 26

Union of Concerned Scientists 3.85 1.10 27

Sierra Club 3.65 .892 26

Clean Air Trust 3.60 .699 10

Audubon Society 3.62 1.13 26

Conservation International 3.50 1.26 16

Center on Global Climate Change 3.46 .967 13

World Wildlife Fund 3.30 1.11 23

Friends of the Earth 3.10 1.14 21

Public Citizen 3.00 .961 14

Climate Action Network 3.00 1.00 13

Greenpeace 2.69 1.29 26

National Environmental Trust 2.53 1.41 15

Earth Liberation Front 1.55 .945 20

*Responses were coded: 5 = very likely, 4 =likely, 3 = neither likely nor unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 1 = very unlikely

BEST COPYAVAILABLE 197 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENTANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 24 Table 3. Means (and Standard Deviations) for indicators of Coverage

GROUP Number of Number of mentions per Coverage paragraphs per article2 Index3 article' Sierra Club 1.74 1.63 155.0 N=464 (1.44) (1.23)

Greenpeace 4.46 3.45 102.8 N=13 (5.03) (5.54)

National Environmental Trust 1.30 1.03 66.9 N=29 (.591) (.523)

Natural Resources Defense Council 1.30 1.24 58.4 N=23 (.559) (.523)

Environmental Defense Fund 1.71 1.07 38.9 N=14 (.726) (.258)

World Wildlife Fund 1.46 1.06 32.8 N=13 (.776) (.236)

Clean Air Trust 1.20 1.00 22.0 N=10 (.422) (.000)

Friends of the Earth 1.50 1.18 21.4 N=8 (.756) (.405)

Public Citizen 1.83 1.67 21.0 N=6 (1.17) (1.21)

Union of Concerned Scientists 1.33 1.13 14.8 N=6 (.817) (.354)

Center on Global Climate Change 2.25 1.25 14.0 N=4 (1.89) (.500)

Ozone Action 2.50 1.00 14.0 N=4 (1.73) (.000)

Climate Action Network 5.00 1.00 12.0 N=2 (5.66) (.000)

Audubon Society 2.00 1.40 6.8 N=2 (1.41) (.894)

Conservation International 0.00 1.00 1.00 N=1

Average number of paragraphs in which the group was mentioned 2 Average number of overall mentions of the group in all sample articles. 3 Sum of means of paragraphs and mentions multiplied by the number of articles about the group 4 Number of articles in which the group was mentioned.

BESTCOPYAVAIILABLE 198 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 25

Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients for source credibility, likeliness of usage as source, andprominence of coverage.

Variables AccuracyFairness Complete- Bias Credibility Likeliness Number ofNumber Coverage ness Index of Usage asparagraphs of Index6 source per article mentions in all articles .99a Trust] .98a .94 a .83 a .98 a .92 a -.03 .01 .01 (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) .93 a .97a Accuracy .98 a .80 a .87 a .02 .02 .01 (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) Fairness' --- .94a .84a .98a .92 a -.03 -.01 .01 (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) Complete- .94a .98a .87 a .02 -.07 -.27 ness' (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) Bias' .90a .83 a .13 -.10 -.38 (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) Credibility .91 a .01 -.04 -.12 Index2 --- (15) (15) (15) (15) Likeliness -.01 .09 .09 of Usage as (15) (15) (15) source3 Number of .68 a .25 paragraphs (15) (15) per article`] Number of .60b mentions in (15) all articles5

Responses were coded 1 to 5 for each variable. 2 Average of the above 5 variables, Cronbach's alpha range = .80 to .93 3 Responses were coded: 5 = very likely, 4 =likely, 3 = neither likely nor unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 1 = very unlikely. Average number of paragraphs in which the group was mentioned. 5 Number of overall mentions of the group in all sample articles. 6 Sum of means of paragraphs and mentions multiplied by the number of articles about the group.

a p < .01 by<.05

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

199 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 26 Appendix A

Meyer's Credibility Index (McComas & Trumbo, 2001)

1. The (Sierra Club)* is a possible source of information on the issue of global warming. Considering what you know, please circle the number between the pair of

words that best describes your feelings about information from the Sierra Club.

Can't be trusted 1 2 3 4 5 Can be trusted

Is inaccurate 1 2 3 4 5 Is Accurate

Is unfair 1 2 3 4 5 Is fair

Doesn't tell the 1 2 3 4 5 Tells the whole story whole story

Is biased 1 2 3 4 5 Is unbiased

2. On the issue of global warming, how likely are you to use the (Sierra Club)* as a source?

Very Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 Very likely

*Insert name of environmental group

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 200 SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 27 References

Archibald, E. (1999). Problems with environmental reporting: Perspectives of daily newspaper reporters. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30, 27-32.

Ball-Rokeach, S.J., Power, G.J., Guthrie, K.K., & Waring, H.R. (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: An application of media system dependency theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 249-273.

Chibnall, S. (1975). The crime reporter: A study in the production of commercial knowledge. Sociology, 9, 49-66.

Chibnall, S. (1977). Law-and-order news: An analysis of crime reporting in the British press. London: Tavistock.

Corbett, J.B. (1998a). The environment as theme and package on a local television newscast. Science Communication, 19, 222-237.

Corbett, J.B. (1998b). Media, bureaucracy, and the success of social protest: Newspaper coverage of environmental movement groups. Mass Communication & Society, 1,41-61.

Counts, T.M., Jr. (1975). The influence of message and source on selection of statements by reporters. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 443-449.

Curtin, P.A. & Rhodenbaugh, E. (2001). Building the news media agenda on the environment. A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources. Public Relations Review, 27, 179-195.

Detjen, J., Fico, F., Li, X., & Kim, Y. (2000). Changing work environment of environmental reporters. Newspaper Research Journal, 21, 2-25.

Donohue, G.A., Tichenor, P.J., & Olien, C.N. (1972). Gatekeeping: Mass media systems and information control. In F.G. Kline & P.J. Tichenor (Eds.), Current perspectives in mass communication research (pp. 41-70). Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Donohue, G.A., Tichenor, P.J., & Olien, C.N. (1995). A guard dog perspective on the role of media. Journal of Communication 45, 115-32.

Edwards, D. (1998). Can we learn the truth about the environment form the media? The Ecologist, 28, 18-22.

Gans, H.J. (1979). Deciding what 's news: A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time.. New York: Pantheon.

201 BESTCOPY AVAL LABLE SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: ACONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 28 Hansen, K.A. (1991). Source diversity and newspaperenterprise journalism. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 474-482.

Hovland, C.I., & Weiss, W. (1953). The influence of sourcecredibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15,635-650.

Kielbowicz, R.B., & Scherer, C. (1986). The role of the pressin the dynamics of social movements. In L. Kriesberg (Ed.), Research in social movements,conflicts and change (Vol. 9, pp. 71-96). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Lacy, S., & Coulson, D.C. (2000). Comparative case study:Newspaper source use on the environment beat. Newspaper Research Journal, 21, 13-25.

Mazur, A., & Lee, J. (1993). Sounding the global alarm:Environmental issues in the U.S. national news. Social Studies of Science, 23, 681-720.

McComas, K.A., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about climatechange: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. CommunicationResearch, 26, 30-57.

McComas, K.A., & Trumbo, C.W. (2001). Source credibility inenvironmental health- risk controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index.Risk Analysis, 21, 467-480.

Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers:Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-574, 588.

Paletz, D.L., & Entman, R.M. (1981). Media power, politics. NewYork: Free Press.

Powers, A., & Fico, F. (1994). Influences on use of sources at large U.S. newspapers. Newspaper Research Journal, 15, 87-98.

Rogers, E.M. (1996). The field of health communication today: Anup-to-date report. Journal of Health Communication, 1, 15-23.

Roscho, B. (1975). Newsmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ryan, C., Carrage, K.M., & Schwerner, C. (1998). Media movementsand the quest for social justice. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26,165-181.

Sachsman, D.B., Sandman, P.M., Greenberg, M.R., & Salomon,K.L. (1988). Improving press coverage of environmentalrisk. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 2, 295-296.

Shanahan, J. Morgan, M., & Stenbjerre, M. (1997). Green or Brown?Television and the cultivation of environmental concern. Journal of Broadcasting &Electronic Media, 41, 305-323.

PY AVAILABLE 202 BEST SOURCE CREDIBILITY AND GLOBAL WARMING: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS. 29 Shoemaker, P.J. (1984). Media treatment of deviant political groups. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 66-75, 82.

Shoemaker, P.J. (1991). Gatekeeping. Newbury, CA: Sage.

Shoemaker, P.J., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Shoemaker, P.J., Eichholz, M., Kim, E., & Wrigley, B. (2001). Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 233-246.

Society of Environmental Journalists History (n.d.). Retrieved February 28, 2002, from http://www.sej.org/about/history.htm

Stempel, G., & Culberston, H. (1984). The prominence and dominance of news sources in newspaper medical coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 671-676.

Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in U.S. news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5, 269-283.

Yanovitzky, I., & Bennett, C. (1999). Media attention, institutional response and health behavior change. Communication Research, 26, 429-453.

203 BEDCOPYAVAILABLE U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) ERIC National Library of Education (NLE) Educational Resources Inlormation Center Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (1/2003)